



^ ^ 










V ^ 
X> 



- 









-^ 



.*" 













\ 



% * 



: ^>^ ^«* %s v » . I 



.\\ N C „ ■/ y iK 



AV ^r. 



V' 







' J ' V 







* \ 






.0° 






,0 V v 1 "' 'c- ■' 



%•. 




\- .# 






r y 1L*«*+ y /! C *A 






' ,■- v 



,0o 








it? 



MARTIN LUTHER 



ON THE 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL; 



TO THE VENERABLE MISTER 



ERASMUS OF ROTTERDAM. 



1525. 



FAITHFULLY TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN 



EDWARD THOMAS VAUGHAN, M.A. 

VICAR OF ST. MARTIN'S, LEICESTER, RECTOR OF FOSTON, LEICESTERSHIRE, 
AND SOMETIME FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 



WITH A PREFACE AND NOTES. 



LONDON : 

SOLD FOR THE EDITOR, BY T. HAMILTON, PATERNOSTER- 
ROW ; AND T. COMBE, LEICESTER, 



1823. 



[Entered at Stationers' Hall*] 



. Lb 



LL 
549239 
m 8 1841 I 



London : Printed by A. Applegath, 
Stamford-street. 



TO 

HIM 

WHO SITTETH UPON THE THRONE 
BY THE SIDE OF THE INVISIBLE FATHER, 

EVEN JESUS, 

MY LORD AND MY GOD ! 

WHO KNOWETH THAT 

NOT BY MY FREEWILL, BUT BY HIS, 

THIS WORK, 

WHATSOEVER IT BE, 

WAS PROMPTED AND UNDERTAKEN, 

AND HATH NOW AT LENGTH BEEN EXECUTED, 

I DEDICATE IT : 

DESIRING THAT HIS WILL, NOT MY OWN, 
BE DONE BY IT ; 
AND FIRM IN THE HOPE, THAT HE WILL USE IT 
UNTO THE EDIFYING OF HIS PEOPLE.— 



E. T. V. 



PREFACE. 



I deem it expedient to put the reader in possession of 
the circumstances under which this work was written ; 
for which purpose it is necessary that I premise a rapid 
sketch of Luther's history, in its connection with Pro- 
testantism. 

Martin Luther was born in the year 1483, at Isleben, 
in Saxony. His father, who had wrought in the mines of 
Mansfield, became afterwards a proprietor in them ; which 
enabled him to educate his son, not only with a pious 
father's care, but with a rich father's liberality. After 
furnishing him with the elements in some inferior schools, 
he sent him at an early age to the University of Erfurth : 
where he made considerable proficiency in classical learn- 
ing, eloquence and philosophy, and commenced Master of 
Arts at the age of twenty. His parents had destined him 
for the bar ; but after devoting himself diligently to the 
study of the civil law for some time, he forsook it ab- 
ruptly, and shut himself up in a convent at Erfurth. 

Here he became remarkable for his diligence, self-morti- 
fication and conscientiousness; occasionally suffering great 
agitation of mind from an ignorant fear of God. Habitu- 
ally sad, and at intervals overwhelmed with paroxysms of 
mental agony, he consulted his vicar-general Staupitius ; 
who comforted him by suggesting, that he did not know 
how useful and necessary this trial might be to him : f God 
does not thus exercise you for nothing, said he ; you will 
one day see that he will employ you as his servant for 

a 



ii PREFACE, 

great purposes.' — c The event, adds the historian, gave 
ample honour to the sagacity of Staupitius, and it is very- 
evident that a deep and solid conviction of sin, leading 
the mind to the search of Scripture- truth, and the investi- 
gation of the way of peace, was the main spring of 
Luther's whole after conduct ; and indeed this view of our 
reformer's state of mind furnishes the only key to the dis- 
covery of the real motives, by which he was influenced in 
his public transactions/ 

It was npt till the second year of his residence in the 
monastery, that he accidentally met with a Latin Bible in 
the library, when he, for the first time, discovered that 
large portions of the Scriptures were withheld from the 
people. Being sick this same year, he was greatly com- 
forted by an elder brother of the convent, who directed his 
attention to that precious article of our creed, ( I believe 
in the remission of sins/ Staupitius, he afterwards 
remarked, had spoken to him as with the voice of an angel, 
when he taught him that f true repentance begins with the 
love of righteousness and of God ;' but the old monk led 
him up to the source of this love. — There may be, there is, 
a breathing after righteousness, and a feeling after God, 
which prepareth the way for this love ; but there can be 
no real righteousness wrought, or real love of it and of God 
felt, till we have the consciousness of his forgiveness. — 
His aged adviser represented to him, that this article im- 
plied not merely a general belief — for the devils, he 
remarked, had a faith of that sort — but that it was the 
command of God, that each particular person should apply 
this doctrine of the remission of sins to his own particular 
case ; and referred him for the proof of what he said to 
Bernard, Augustine and St. Paul. — With incredible ardour 
he now gave himself up to the study of the Scriptures, 
and of Augustine's works. Afterwards he read other 
divines, but he stuck close to Augustine $ and held by 
him, as we find, to his last hour. 



PREFACE. iii 

In the year 1507:, ne received holy orders ; and in the 
next year was called to the Professorship of Divinity at 
Wittemberg, through the recommendation of his friend 
Staupitius ; who thereby gave him an opportunity of veri- 
fying his own forebodings concerning him. Here arose 
his connection with the elector Frederic, of Saxony ; 
which was so serviceable to him in all his after- conflicts. 
Frederic was tenderly anxious for the credit and success 
of his infant seminary ; and Luther more than fulfilled 
his expectations, both as a teacher of philosophy and as a 
public minister. ( Eloquent by nature, and powerful in 
moving the affections, acquainted also in a very uncom- 
mon manner with the elegancies and energy of his native 
tongue, he soon became the wonder of his age/ 

In 1510, he was dispatched to Rome on some import- 
ant business of his order ; which he performed so well as to 
receive the distinction of a doctor's degree upon his return. 
Whilst at Rome he had opportunities of noticing the 
spirit with which religious worship was conducted there — 
its pomp, hurriedness and politically ; and was thankful 
to return once more to his convent, where he might pray 
deliberately and fervently without being ridiculed. He 
now entered upon a public exposition of the Psalms and 
Epistle to the Romans ; studied Greek and Hebrew with 
great diligence \ improved his taste, and enlarged his 
erudition, by availing himself of the philological labours 
of Erasmus (to which he always owned that he had been 
greatly indebted) ; rejected the corruptive yoke of Aris- 
totle and the Schoolmen, and rested not, like the satirist 
who had given him a taste for pulling down, in confusion, 
but sought and found his peace in erecting a scriptural 
theology upon the ruins of heathenized Christianity. The 
true light beamed very gradually upon his mind : from sus- 
pecting error he became convinced that it was there ; con- 
strained to reject error, he was forced step by step into truth. 

Whilst thus employed, with great contention of mind, 
a2 



iv PREFACE. 

in studying, ruminating, teaching and preaching \ when 
now he had been favoured with some peculiar advan- 
tages* for ascertaining the real state of religion, 
both amongst clergy and laity, in his own country, his 
attention was in a manner compelled to the subject of 
Indulgences. He had not taken it up as a speculation ; 
he did not know the real nature, grounds, ingredients, or 
ramifications of the evil. As a confessor, he had to do 
with acknowledgments of sin ; as a priest, he was to dic- 
tate penances. The penitents refused to comply, because 
they had dispensations in their pockets. — What a chef- 
d'ceuvre of Satan's was here ! It is not (i Sin no more, 
least a worse thing happen unto thee ;" but e Sin as thou 
listest, if thou canst pay for it/ Luther would not ab- 
solve. The brass-browed Tetzel stormed, and ordered 
his pile of wood to be lighted that he might strike terror 
into all who should dare to think of being heretics. At 
present Luther only said with great mildness from the 
pulpit, c that the people might be better employed than in 
running from place to place to procure Indulgences /f 

* In his office of subaltern vicar he had about forty monasteries 
under his inspection, which he had taken occasion to visit. 

f It is not to be inferred that Luther was at this time ignorant of 
the doctrine of grace, because ignorant of this particular subject. This 
is the memorable year 1517- In the preceding year, 1516, he thus 
wrote to a friend. ' I desire to know what your soul is doing ; whe- 
ther wearied at length of its own righteousness, it learns to refresh 
itself and to rest in the righteousness of Christ. The temptation 'of 
presumption in our age is strong in many, and specially in those who 
labour to be just and good with all their might, and at the same time 
are ignorant of the righteousness of God, which in Christ is conferred 
upon all with a rich exuberance of gratuitous liberality. They seek in 
themselves to work that which is good, in order that they may have 
a confidence of standing before God, adorned with virtues and merits, 
which is an impossible attempt. You, my friend, used to be of this 
same opinion, or rather — of this same mistake ; so was I ; but now I 
am lighting against the error, but have not yet prevailed. , — ' A little 
before the controversy concerning Indulgences, George, Duke of 
Saxony, entreated Staupitius to send him some worthy and learned 



PREFACE. v 

He was sure it was wrong ; he would try to check it ; 
would try, with canonical regularity, applying to arch- 
bishop and bishop for redress : so ignorant of the prin- 
cipals, sub-ordinates and sub-sub-ordinates in the traffic, 
that he called upon his own archbishop vender to stop the 
trade ! 

See how God worketh.. Ambition, vanity and extrava- 
gance are made the instrument of developing the abomi- 
nations of the Popedom, that God may develope himself 
by his dealings with it. The gorgeous temple, whose 
foundations had previously been laid, to the wonderment 
of man, not to the praise and worship of God, must con- 
tinue to be built ; though not one jot may be subtracted 
from Leo's pomp, sensuality and magnificence, and though 
his treasury be already exhausted. Profligate necessity 
leads him to an expedient, which, whilst it reveals his 
own spirit, and discloses the principles of the government 

preacher. The vicar-general, in compliance with his request, dis- 
patched Luther with strong recommendations to Dresden. George 
gave him an order to preach : the sum of Luther's sermon was this ; 
That no man ought to despair of the possibility of salvation ; that those 
who heard the word of God with attentive minds were true disciples of 
Christ, and were elected and predestinated to eternal life. He enlarged 
on the subject, and shewed that the whole doctrine of predestination, if 
the foundation be laid in Christ, was of singular efficacy to dispel that 
fear, by which men, trembling under the sense of their own unworthi- 
ness, are tempted to fly from God, who ought to be our sovereign 
refuge/ — Evidence to the same effect may be drawn in abundance from 
his letter to Spalatinus, written in this same preceding year, containing 
remarks on Erasmus's interpretations of Scripture, compared with those 
of Jerome, Augustine, and some of the other. Fathers. — ' When obe- 
dience to the commandment takes place to a certain degree, and yet 
has not Christ for its foundation, though it may produce such men as 
your Fabricius's, and your Regulus's, that is, very upright moralists, 
according to man's judgment, it has nothing of the nature of genuine 
righteousness. For men are not made truly righteous, as Aristotle 
supposes, by performing certain actions which are externally good — 
for they may still be counterfeit characters — but men must have righte- 
ous principles in the first place, and then they will not fail to perform 
righteous actions. God first respects Abel, and then his offering.'— 
Milner, iv. Cent xvi. chap. ii. 



vi PREFACE. 

he administers, could scarcely fail to draw some at least 
into an inquiry, by what authority they Were called to 
submit to such enormities. This expedient (not new 
indeed — Julius had adopted it before — but never yet so 
extensively and so barefacedly practised, as in this in- 
stance) was no other than to make gain of godliness, by 
selling merits for money — by not pardoning only, but even 
legalizing, contempt and defiance of God, through the 
distribution of certain superfluous riches of Christ and of 
his saints, of which the Pope has the key. The price 
demanded varied with the circumstances of the buyer, so 
that all ranks of men might be partakers of the benefit. In 
fact, all orders of men were laid under contribution to 
ecclesiastical profligacy, whilst the infamous Dominican 
had some colour for his boast, that he had saved more 
souls from hell by his Indulgences, than St. Peter had 
converted to Christianity by his preaching. 

Luther inquired, studied, prayed, called on his rulers ; 
and at length, receiving no help but only silence or 
cautions from authorities, published his ninety-five theses, 
or doctrinal propositions, upon the subject : which were 
spread, with wonderful impression and effect, in the course 
of fifteen days, throughout all Germany. 

Tetzel answered them by one hundred and six ; which 
gave occasion to sermons in reply and rejoinder ; and so 
dutiful, so simple-hearted, and so confident in truth, was 
Luther, that he sent his publications to his superiors in 
the church, his diocesan and his vicar-general ; and re- 
quested the latter to transmit them to the Pope. — The 
cause was now fairly before the public. New antagonists 
arose. Luther was elaborate and temperate in his an- 
swers. — At length the lion was roused. He had com- 
mended brother Martin for his very fine genius, and re- 
solved the dispute into monastic envy — a rivalry between 
the Dominicans and the Augustinians : but now, within 
sixty days, he must appear to answer for himself at Rome \ 



PREFACE. vii 

nay, he is condemned already as an incorrigible heretic, 
without trial, in the apostolic chamber at Rome, even 
before the citation reaches him. Through the intercession 
of his powerful friend the elector, he gets a hearing at 
Augsburg; if that can be called a hearing, which gives 
the accused no alternative but admission of his crime and 
recantation. — Such however was the justice and the judg- 
ment which Luther met with at the hands of Cajetan. 
After going to and beyond the uttermost of what was right 
in submission — saving nothing but to write down the six 
letters (revoco), which would have settled every thing — 
though there were other weighty matters in dispute, 
besides the Indulgences — he left his imperious, con- 
temptuous judge with an appeal which he took care to 
have solemnly registered in due form of law, <e from the 
Pope ill-informed to the same most holy Leo X. when 
better informed." — Luther had in his several conferences 
at Augsburg, written and unwritten, stood distinctly upon 
his distinguishing ground, ' Scripture against all papal 
decrees :' it is his glory on this occasion, that he main- 
tained it in the very jaws of the usurper's representative; 
an abject mendicant monk, as the cardinal haughtily 
termed him, with all due and unfeigned respect for human 
superiority, took and acted the language, which two ap- 
prehended and arraigned Apostles had used before him, 
i( We ought to obey God rather than men." — Cajetan got 
no honour at Rome by his negociations at Augsburg ; the 
papal counsellors complained that he had been severe 
and illiberal, when he ought to have promised riches, a 
bishopric, and a cardinal's hat. Such were their hot- 
burning coals to be heaped upon the head of inflexibility ! 
On his return to Wittemberg, at the close of 1518, 
Luther meditated to leave Germany and retire into 
France ; but the elector forbad him, and made earnest 
application to the emperor Maximilian to interpose, and 
get the controversy settled. Meanwhile, Luther renewed 



viii PREFACE. 

his appeal to the Pope; which was followed, strange to 
tell, by a new bull in favour of Indulgences, confirming 
all the ancient abuses, but not even mentioning Luther's 
name. In his then state of mind, clinging as he still did 
to the Pope's authority, this document was opportune ; as 
serving to make his retreat impossible. Maximilian's 
death, which took place early in 1519, increased the elec- 
tor's power of protecting Luther during the interregnum, 
and led to more lenient measures at Rome. The courte- 
ous Saxon knight was sent to replace the imperious 
Dominican. — c Martin, said he, I took you for some soli- 
tary old theologian ; whereas I find you a person in all the 
vigour of life. Then you are so much favoured with the 
popular opinion, that I could not expect, with the help of 
twenty-five thousand soldiers, to force you with me to 
Rome/ — Luther was firm, though softened : he had no 
objection to writing submissively to the Pope ; as yet he 
recognised his authority, and it was a principle with him 
to shew respect to his superiors, and to obey " the powers 
that be," in lawful things, if constituted lawfully. 

In the month of July, 1519, were held the famous dis- 
putations at Leipsic ; where Luther, who had been refused 
a safe conduct, if he attempted to appear in the character 
of a disputant, was at length permitted to take up Carol- 
stadt's half-defended cause, and to answer for himself in 
opposition to one of the most learned, eloquent and embit- 
tered of his papal opponents. Eckius, Luther's quondam 
friend, had come to earn laurels for himself, and strength 
for the Papacy ; but He who gives the prey assigned it to 
truth, and made this the occasion of supplying Luther 
with many able coadjutors. Melancthon's approval of 
his doctrine and attachment to his person were the off- 
spring of this rencounter. ( At Wittemberg, Melancthon 
had probably been well acquainted with Luther's lec- 
tures on divinity ; but it was in the citadel of Leipsic that 
he heard the Romish tenets defended by all the arguments 



PREFACE. ix 

that ingenuity could devise ; there his suspicions were 
strengthened respecting the evils of the existing hierarchy; 
and there his righteous spirit was roused to imitate, in the 
grand object of his future inquiries and exertions, the 
indefatigable endeavours of his zealous and adventurous 
friend/ 

Here it was, thai the .question of papal supremacy 
first came into debate. The act of granting Indulgences 
assumed the right; but the principle was now brought 
forwards by Eckius, in malicious wilfulness, for the pur- 
pose of throwing scandal upon Luther \ who as yet, how- 
ever, (e saw men, but as trees, walking;" and even main- 
tained the Pope's supremacy, though on inferior grounds. 
He gave it him by a right founded on human reasons ; 

DIVINE PERMISSION, and THE CONSENT OF THE FAITHFUL. 

Though Eckius's thirteen propositions, and Luther's ad- 
versative ones, had respect chiefly to the papal domination, 
they comprehended other topics ; and much important 
matter of a more generally interesting nature was elicited 
and agitated by the discussion. On all the subjects of 
debate, Luther shewed a mind opening itself to truth, as 
in the instance just cited; though it may be doubted whe 
ther he was yet fully enlightened into any. Even on 
Justification, and on Freewill, though he held the sub- 
stance of what he taught afterwards, he did not use the 
same materials, or the same form of defence. Hear his 
own account, as given in the preface to his works. c My 
own case, says he, is a notable example of the difficulty 
with which a man emerges from erroneous notions of long 
standing. How true is the proverb, custom is a second 
nature ! How true is that saying of Augustine, habit, if 
not resisted, becomes necessity ! I, who both publicly 
and privately, had taught divinity with the greatest dili- 
gence for seven years, insomuch that I retained in my 
memory almost every word of my lectures, was in fact at 
that time only just initiated into the knowledge and faith 



x PREFACE. 

of Christ; I had only just learnt that a man must be justi- 
fied and saved not by works but by the faith of Christ ; 
and lastly, in regard to pontifical authority, though I pu- 
blicly maintained that the Pope was not the head of the 
church by a divine right, yet I stumbled at the very next 
step, namely, that the whole papal system was a Satanic 
invention. This I did not see, but contended obstinately 
for the Pope's right, founded on human reasons ; so 
thoroughly deluded was I by the example of others, by 
the title of holy church, and by my own habits. Hence 
I have learnt to have more candour for bigoted Papists, 
especially if they are not much acquainted with sacred, or 
perhaps, even with profane history/ — When the debate 
was over, Luther calmly reviewed his own thirteen propo- 
sitions, and published them, with concise explanations and 
proofs ; establishing his conclusions chiefly by an appeal 
to Scripture and to ecclesiastical history. 

These wrestling-matches of ancient times were the 
seed-bed of the reviving church : the people heard, the 
people read; and thus, according to Luther's favourite 
maxim, the stone which is to destroy Antichrist was 

CUT OUT WITHOUT HANDS. 

In 1520, Miltitz advised a second letter to the Pope. 
Advancing, as he now was, towards meridian light, he found 
it difficult to do this with integrity ; it may be questioned, 
whether he succeeded in his attempt. Already he had 
disclosed to his friend that he had not much doubt but 
the Pope is the real Antichrist. ' The lives and conver- 
sation of the Popes, their actions, their decrees, all, said 
he, agree most wonderfully to the descriptions of him in 
Holy Writ.' With what consistency could he still ap- 
proach him as his authorized head and desired protector, 
flatter his person, and propose terms of mutual silence? 
True, the tone of his address is much altered from that 
of his former letter ; he declares many of the abomina- 
tions of his government ; he expressly refuses to recant ; 



PREFACE. xi 

he insists upon his great principle, c perfect freedom in 
interpreting the word of God.' He is also peculiarly wise, 
just, plain and forcible in warning him against the big 
swelling words, with which his flatterers dignified him : 
" O my people, they which call thee blessed cause 
thee to err/' But we could be glad to see more of frank- 
ness and less of compliment ; the person not so subtilely 
separated from the office, the man from his court ; wishes 
and prayers for good suppressed, where he had begun to 
be persuaded that there could be only curse and destruc- 
tion. The only plausible defence is, his mind was not 
yet fully made up as to what the Pope is : he had doubts, 
he thought himself bound to go to the uttermost in endea- 
vours to conciliate, such an appeal would be a touchstone. 
In estimating the rectitude of this measure, every thing, it 
is plain, depends upon the degree of light which had then 
beamed upon his mind : but it is difficult to conceive, that, 
writing, as he had done, early in this same year to Spala- 
tinus, and writing, as he afterwards did, in the month of 
June, his treatise on the necessity of reformation, and, in 
the month of August, his Babylonish captivity, he should, 
in the intermediate space, have retained a state of mind 
which, consistently with simplicity, could dictate his, or 
indeed any letter of accommodation to Leo. 

At length, however, having abundantly proved his 
David, and convinced him of his foolishness, the Lord took 
it clean away from him, whilst He sealed up his enemies 
in theirs. Never was there a more manifest illustration of 
Jewish blindness and induration — cc He hath blinded their 
eyes, and hardened their heart " — than in the counsels of 
the Conclave at this period. Leo disdains to be conciliated. 
After three years' delay, when Lutheranism has now 
grown to a size and a strength which no fire can burn, 
the damnatory bull is issued on the 15th of June, 1520, at 
Rome, and after a further short interval of mysterious 
silence is published in Germany. It extracted forty-one 



xii PREFACE. 

propositions out of his writings, declaring them all to be 
heretical, forbad the reading and commanded the burning 
of his books, excommunicated his person, and required all 
secular princes to aid in his arrest. 

Luther was now quite prepared to receive it ; prepared 
through the judgment which the Lord had now enabled 
him to form concerning the papal usurpation; and pre- 
pared, through the willingness which He had given him to 
suffer martyrdom for the truth, if called to that issue. The 
trenches were now fairly opened ; the war was begun. 
His first measure was to publish two Tracts : in one of 
which he treated the bull ironically, pretending to have 
some doubts of its authenticity, but still entitling it the 
execrable bull of Antichrist, and calling upon the emperor 
and all christian princes to come and defend the church 
against the Papists ; in the other, he gave a serious answer 
to the forty-one condemned articles, defending the autho- 
rity of Scripture, and calling every body to study it, with- 
out deference to the expositions of men. Having answered, 
he acted his reply to it. If the bull were valid, it was not 
to be answered, but obeyed : he would shew, therefore, 
that he accounted it an illegal instrument. The Pope was 
the separatist, not he \ a bull of Antichrist is a bull to be 
burnt. He therefore takes the bull, together with the papal 
decretals, and such parts of the canon law as had respect 
to the pontifical jurisdiction, and with all due solemnity 
and publicity commits them to the flames : a measure, which 
he afterwards proved to have been deliberately adopted' — 
not the effect of heat and rage, but of calm conviction — 
by selecting thirty articles from the books he had burnt, 
publishing them with a short comment, and appealing to 
the public whether he had shewn them less respect than 
they deserved. The two last of these were, Article 29. 
'The Pope has the power to interpret Scripture, and 
to teach as he pleases ; and no person is allowed to in- 
terpret in a different way/ Article 30. c The Pope does 



PREFACE. xiii 

not derive from the Scripture, but the Scripture derives 
from the Pope authority, power and dignity/ He had more, 
he said, of like kind. Assume his cause to be just, and his 
bold proceedings were unquestionably right. His was not 
a case for half-measures. He was either a subject for 
burning, or a vindicator of v the oppressed. What sort of 
vindicator ? Not by the knight- errant' s sword, but by 
such acts as should declare him to be in earnest, and such 
arguments as should shew that he was not in earnest for 
nought. His publications at this period, and during the two 
preceding years, were almost without number. He knew 
that his life was in his hand ; he prized the short interval, 
as he anticipated, which was allowed him ; the cause of 
Christ, so evidently committed into his hands, was to be 
maintained, extended, and at length made triumphant, 
only by the bloodless sword of the Spirit. That sword 
therefore he would wield with all his might, without ces- 
sation, faintness, or weariness. His main expectation 
was from the word of God simply and intelligibly set 
forth. He added short practical and experimental trea- 
tises — appeals to plain sense and Scripture — but the ex- 
pounded word was his stay. Hence his great labour in the 
Epistle to the Galatians ; which he first published in the 
year 1519, and, after fifteen years of additional research, 
having made it one material subject of his public lectures 
during all that period, revised, corrected, enlarged, and 
reedited in 1635. 

f I have repeatedly read and meditated on this treatise, 
says his pious, laborious and philosophical historian, and, 
after the most mature reflection, am fully convinced, that, 
as it was one of the most powerful means of reviving the 
light of Scripture in the sixteenth century, so it will, in 
all ages, be capable of doing the same, under the blessing 
of God, whenever a disposition shall appear among men to 
regard the oracles of divine truth, and whenever souls shall 
be distressed with a sense of in-dwelling sin. For I per- 



xiv PREFACE. 

fectly despair of its being relished at all by any but serious, 
humble and contrite spirits, such being indeed the only 
persons in the world, to whom the all-important article of 
justification will appear worthy of all acceptation. The 
Author himself had ploughed deep into the human heart, 
and knew its native depravity ; he had long laboured, to 
no purpose, to gain peace of conscience by legal observ- 
ances and moral works, and had been relieved from the 
most pungent anxiety, by a spiritual discovery of the 
doctrine just mentioned. He was appointed in the coun- 
sels of Providence — by no means exclusively of the other 
reformers, but in a manner more extraordinary and much 
superior — to teach mankind, after upwards of a thousand 
years' obscurity, this great evangelical tenet — compared 
with which how little appear all other objects of contro- 
versy ! namely, that man is not justified by the works of 
the law, but by the faith of Christ/ 

I cannot deny myself the satisfaction of inserting one 
extract from this truly spiritual work. — 'This doctrine, 
therefore, of faith must be taught in its purity. Namely, 
that as a believer, thou art by faith so entirely united to 
Christ that he and thou are made as it were one person. That 
thou canst not be separated from Christ; but always adherest 
so closely to him, as to be able to say with confidence, I am 
one with Christ ; that is, Christ's righteousness, his vic- 
tory, his life, death, and resurrection, are all mine. On the 
other hand, Christ may say, I am that sinner ; the meaning 
of which is, in other words, his sins, his death, and punish- 
ment, are mine, because he is united and joined to me, and I 
to him. For by faith we are so joined together as to become 
one flesh and one bone. We are members of his body, of 
his flesh, and of his bones ; so that, in strictness, there is 
more of an union between Christ and me, than exists even 
in the relation of husband and wife, where the two are con- 
sidered as one flesh. This faith, therefore, is by no means 
an ineffective quality ; but possesses so great excellency, 



PREFACE. xv 

that it utterly confounds and destroys the foolish dreams 
and imaginations of the Sophisters, who have contrived a 
number of metaphysical fictions concerning faith and 
charity, merits and qualifications. — These things are of 
such moment, that I would gladly explain them more at 
large, if I could.'* 

Luther had many antagonists in his warfare. As his as- 
sertive manifestoes were clear, argumentative and decisive; 
so his answers to those who attacked them were prompt, 
energetic and full. He neither spurned, nor delayed, nor 
spared. His admiring historian thinks it necessary to 
apologize for his vehemence, and for his acrimony. I do 
not concur with him in the sense of that necessity. God, 
who made the man, gave him his language. His language 
was the language for his case, for his hour, for his hearers 
and readers. Such were the publications wanted ; such 
would be read ; they agitated the high, they were under- 
stood by the vulgar. His own account of himself, as 
given at a later period, is worth a thousand apologies. f I, 
says he, am born to be a rough controversialist ; I clear 
the ground, pull up weeds, fill up ditches, and smooth the 
roads. But to build, to plant, to sow, to water, to adorn the 
country, belongs, by the grace of God, to Melancthon/ — If 
he had a spirit of rancorous enmity and cold-blooded malice 
towards his opponents, let him be condemned : but, we all 
knoWj severe words may be spoken without a particle of 
malignity, and a smooth tongue often disguises an 

* There is a defect in Luther's statement of the believer's union with 
Christ : he does not mark, he did not discern, its origin and founda- 
tion, and its consequent exclusiveness and appropriateness to a peculiar 
people. He refers it all to his believing; which is the manifestation, 
realization and effectuation of that relation which has subsisted, not 
in divine purpose only, but in express stipulation and arrangement, 
from everlasting, and which has been the source of that very faith, or 
rather of that energizing of the Holy Ghost, which he considers as its 
parent. But the thing itself, the nature of this union, is so beautifully 
described, that, whatever be its defects, I could be glad to give it all 
currency. 



*vi PREFACE. 

envenomed spirit. — / am much more disposed to quarrel 
with his vanity, than with his petulance. 

The obligations which Charles owed to Frederic were 
such as to secure his protection for Luther, to a certain 
extent. For his opinions he cared not, though his own 
prejudices were no doubt on the side of the old system : 
he cared only for the political bearings of the question ; 
and it was obvious the elector's friend must not be con- 
demned without a hearing. Hence, after much negociation 
and correspondence, his appearance at Worms is agreed 
upon. His wise protector gets an express renunciation of 
the principle, c Faith not to be kept with heretics/ from 
Charles, several of the princes countersign his safe conduct, 
and Luther, as if to face as many devils as there were 
tiles upon the houses of the selected city, preaches his way 
up to Worms. His defence there has sometimes 1 disap- 
pointed me, and he seems afterwards to have felt that he 
had been too tame and unexplicit himself. When he 
speaks, at a still later period, of his boldness ; questioning 
whether he should in that day (but a little before his 
death) have been so bold — a fact recited triumphantly by 
many historians — it is with reference to his courage in 
determining, or rather in proceeding to go up, notwith- 
standing the strong dissuasives which he met with on his 
way, that he gives God glory. He who made man's 
mouth and gives him wisdom, and who hath promised for 
such very occasions^ u I will give you a mouth and wisdom 
which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or 
resist," did, no doubt, order his speech in perfect wisdom, 
at that trying hour. The speech he delivered was the 
speech for the time and for the case. But the question is, 
was it the speech we should have looked for from a 
Luther ? We admit there never was such a moment, pos- 
sibly, since the Apostles' days. All the pomp of Caesar 
was before him. But I confess there is more of the 
elector Frederic, Spalatinus and Melancthon, than of Paul 



PREFACE. Xvii 

before Felix, or of Peter and John before the council. 
Hear his own"account. c I have great misgivings (says 
he in a letter to Spalatinus some months after), and am 
greatly troubled in conscience, because, in compliance 
with your advice, and that of some other friends, I 
restrained my spirit at Worms, and did not conduct 
myself, like an Elijah, in attacking those idols. Were I 
ever to stand before that audience again, they should 
hear very different language from me/ And again; c To 
please certain friends, and that I might not appear unrea- 
sonably obstinate, I did not speak out at the diet of 
Worms ; I did not withstand the tyrants with that decided 
firmness and animation which became a confessor of the 
Gospel ! Moreover I am quite weary of hearing myself 
commended for the moderation which I shewed on that 
occasion/ — The dean sets it all down to humility; but I 
doubt not there was much of well-founded and conscien- 
tious self-upbraiding in these acknowledgments. — He 
maintained his principle, however ; ' a, free use of the 
word ; the Scripture for all, to be freely interpreted by all : 
retract he would, if convinced by Scripture, but not else/ 
Upon being informed that he was required to say simply 
and clearly whether he would or would not retract his 
opinions, ' My answer, said Luther instantly, shall be 
direct and plain. I cannot think myself bound to believe 
either the Pope or his councils ; for it is very clear, not 
only that they have often erred, but often contradicted 
themselves. Therefore, unless I am convinced by Scrip- 
ture or clear reasons, my belief is so confirmed by the 
scriptural passages I have produced, and my conscience so 
determined to abide by the word of God, that I neither 
can nor will retract any thing ; for it is neither safe nor 
innocent to act against a man's conscience/ There is 
something particularly affecting in the words which follow ; 
e Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. May God help, 
me. Amen/ 

b 



xviii PREFACE, 

Many attempts were made to persuade him in secret ; 
but the upshot was, he would stand by the word ; ( rather 
than give up the word of God, when the case is quite 
clear, I would lose my life.'* 

In the course of three hours after his last interview with 
the elector Archbishop of Treves (who, though a bigoted 
Roman Catholic, had shewn strong dispositions to serve 
him), Luther received an order to quit Worms ; only 
twenty- one days being allowed for his safe conduct, and 
he not permitted to preach in his way home. A sanguinary 
edict was then smuggled through the diet: many of the 
members had left Worms before it was voted ; the cere- 
mony of enacting it took place in the emperor's private 
apartments ; the decree was ante-dated, as though it had 
passed on the 8th instead of the 21 si, and Aleander, the 
Pope's legate, Luther's accuser, who had been much 
gravelled by the vast consideration and respect shewn to 
Luther, received it, as a sort of sop and soporific, from the 
emperor, that he should draw up the sentence. 

' The edict, as might be expected, was penned by 

* Much was said, in the course of these discussions, about a future 
council. Luther acknowledged the authority of such a council; main- 
taining only, that it must be legally convened — the civil governor being 
the alone rightful summoner— and that its decisions must be regulated 
by the word of God. There is more of sound than substance in the 
recognition of this appeal ; upon Luther's principles. Waving the 
difficulty of summoning such a general council, where deputies are 
to be brought together out of all Christendom, divided as it is into inde- 
pendent states, under various supreme heads ; what is the decision at 
last ? The testimony of Scripture is testimony of Scripture to my con- 
science, only so far as I am led to understand Scripture in a sense 
which is coincident with the general decision. If that decision be con- 
trary to my own deliberate, conscientious and supposedly Spirit-taught 
views, as a lover of order I bow to the tribunal by submitting to its 
penalties, whether positive or negative ; but I cannot confess myself 
convinced, or adopt the judgment of the council as my own, without 
violating Luther's fundamental principle, « the word my judge/ (See 
Part ii. Sect. xii. note k of the following work.) — Luther's last answer 
confirms the distinction which I have here been marking ; it is to 
the supposed decision of a council, that his resolution applies. 



PREFACE. xix 

Aleander with all possible rancour and malice. The first 
part of it states that it is the duty of the emperor to pro- 
tect religion and extinguish heresies. The second part 
relates the pains that had been taken to bring back the 
heretic to repentance. And the third proceeds to the 
condemnation of Martin Luther in the strongest terms. 
The emperor says, that by the advice of the electors, 
princes, orders, and states of the empire, he had resolved 
to execute the sentence of the Pope, who was the proper 
guardian of the Catholic faith. He declares, that Luther 
must be looked on as excommunicated, and as a notorious 
heretic ; and he forbids all persons, under the penalty of 
high treason, to receive, maintain, or protect him. He 
orders, that after the twenty-one days allowed him he 
should be proceeded against in whatever place he might 
be ; or at least that he should be seized and kept prisoner 
till the pleasure of his imperial majesty was known. He 
directs the same punishment to be inflicted on all his 
adherents or favourers : and that all their goods should be 
confiscated, unless they can prove that they have left his 
party and received absolution. He forbids all persons to 
print, sell, buy or read any of his books, and he enjoins the 
princes and magistrates to cause them to be burnt/ 

This high-sounding decree was never executed. Charles 
was too busy, too much entangled with crooked and con- 
flicting politics, too dependent and too needy, to take ven- 
geance for the Pope, at present, in Germany. In 1522, a 
diet of the empire held at Nuremberg agreed to a con- 
clusion which Luther considered as an abrogation of it. In 
1523, a second diet held at the same place, after some 
considerable difference of sentiment, concurred in a similar 
recess. The Lutherans were divided between hope and 
fear, alternately elated and depressed, during some succeed- 
ing years. In 1526, when evil had been anticipated, the 
diet of Spires, after much jangling, terminated favourably. 
The wrath, however, was but deferred. In 1529, a second 

b2 



xx PREFACE. 

diet at Spires went nigh to establish the neglected edict of 
Worms, The violence, with which it was conducted, led 
to a Protest of the Lutheran states and princes (whence 
we have derived our name of Protestants), and was followed 
by the famous defensive league of Smalcalde. The decree 
of Augsburg, in 1530, served to confirm the necessity of 
this league. The most moderate expressions of doctrine, 
and the most guarded behaviour, had no conciliatory 
efficacy ; force was prepared, and must be repelled by 
military combination. It is not by strength, however, 
or by might — human strength and human might — that the 
Lord wins his battles. That formidable confederacy, 
which could bring 70,000 men into the field, under the 
banner of John the Constant, to meet a not more than 8000 
of the emperor's, soon melted away like the winter's snow. 
In 1547, the emperor carries all before him — takes the two 
great Protestant leaders captive, and makes a spectacle of 
them to their subjects — establishes his Interim, slays the 
Protestant witnesses and assumes to be even the man of 
sin's master, in his domination over the Lord's heritage. 
But behold ! in three years and a half, the witnesses 
ic whose dead bodies have been lying in the street of the 
great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, 
where also our Lord was crucified " — even in that Germany 
which has been called the -highway of Europe — are seen 
standing upon their feet again. The treacherous and 
intriguing Maurice is made the instrument of bringing 
deliverance to the Protestants. The emperor becomes, in 
his turn a fugitive, a panic-struck, and, within a hair's 
breadth, the captive of his captives ; when, at length, the 
unhoped-for treaty of Passan legalizes Protestantism, and 
secures to the revived witnesses a seat in the symbolical 
heavens. 

From the disasters, alike as from the triumphs, of these 
latter scenes Luther was removed by a rapid sickness and 
premature death, in the year 1546. Fatigue and anxiety 



PREFACE. xxi 

had impaired the native soundness and vigour of his bodily 
frame, and he died an old man, at the age of sixty-three. 

The storm which had gathered around his head at 
Worms was repelled in its onset by a prudent stratagem of 
the elector's, which he had communicated, it is probable, 
in secret, to the emperor . himself. Having seized his 
person, by a mock arrest, whilst returning to Wittem- 
berg, he took and hid him in the castle of Wartburg; 
where he fed and nourished him at his own expense for 
ten months, and would have continued to do so, if Luther 
had allowed him, to the end of his days. In this hiding- 
place which he called his Patmos, comparing himself with 
St. John as banished to that island by Domitian, he saw 
many visions of the Almighty, which enlightened his future 
ministry. He betrayed a good deal of impatience under 
this seclusion. He complained that his kind detainer 
fed him too well ; that he ate and drank too much, that he 
grew stupid and sensual. But the truth seems to have 
been, that stir and bustle and a great to do were his 
element. He did not like fowling, though he allegorized 
it, so well as reading lectures to five or six hundred young 
men, and preaching to half as many thousands. Here, 
however, the Lord nurtured his Moses, and made him 
wiser in the art of feeding his sheep ; and, if he suffered 
him to be dull and heavy, he gave him no inclination to 
be idle. The Yonker,* in his horseman's suit, wrote 
many tracts ; improved himself in the knowledge of Greek 
and Hebrew, which he studied very diligently with an eye 
to his projected translation of the Scriptures, and actually 
accomplished his German version of the New Testament, 
so as to publish it this same year. These were not the 
achievements of sloth and sensuality ! Of his original 
works at this period, his answer to Latomus's defence of 

* * During his residence in the castle of Wartburg he suffered his 
beard and hair to grow, assumed an equestrian sort of dress, and passed 
for a country gentleman, under the name of Yonker George, 3 



xxii PREFACE. 

the Louvain divines was the most elaborate. * A confuta- 
tion, says Seckendorff, replete with so much solid learning 
and sound divinity, that it was impossible to reply to it 
without being guilty of obvious cavilling or downright 
impiety. — If the author of it had never published any thing 
else in his whole life, he would, on account of this single 
tract, deserve to be compared with the greatest divines 
which ever existed in the church. At the time of writing 
it, he was furnished with no other book but the Bible ; and 
yet he interprets the leading passages of the Prophets and 
the Apostles, and does away the deceitful glosses of sophis- 
tical commentators with so much exquisite erudition and 
ability, that the genuine meaning of the inspired writers 
cannot but be clear to every pious and attentive reader.' 

He dedicates it to Justus Jonas, who had recently been 
appointed to the presidency of the college of Wittemberg ; 
desiring him to accept it as a sort of congratulatory pre- 
sent, expressing a strong sense of the divine indignation 
as now poured out upon the visible church, and hinting 
what he expected from the new president, in the discharge 
of his office. — c It is my earnest prayer, that you, my 
brother, who, by your appointment ought to teach the 
pestilential decretals of Antichrist, may be enlightened by 
the Spirit of God to do your duty ; that is, unteach every 
thing that belongs to Popery. For though we are com- 
pelled to live in Babylon, we ought to shew that our affec- 
tions are fixed on our own country, Jerusalem. Be strong 
and of good comfort ; and fear not Baalpeor ; but believe 
in the Lord Jesus, who is blessed for evermore. Amen/ 

In this treatise, he vindicates himself from the charge of 
insincerity in having for so long a time submitted to the 
Pope, and to the received opinions ; whilst he declares his 
grief for having done so, his thankfulness to the Lord 
Jesus Christ for that insight into the Scriptures, which he 
deemed a hundred times preferable to the scholastic 
divinity of the times^ and his now full conviction, that the 



PREFACE. xxiii 

Pope is that monster of Antichrist, foretold throughout the 
sacred writings. He expresses himself indifferent to the 
charge of wanting moderation, and as to sedition, it was 
no more than the Jews had charged Christ with ; the main 
point in debate, he maintains, is c the nature of sin/ 
e If in the passages which « I have quoted from St. Paul, 
says he, it can be proved that the Apostle does not use the 
word sin in its true and proper sense, my whole argument 
falls to the ground ; but if this cannot be proved, then 
Latomus's objections are without foundation. He blames 
me for maintaining that no human action can endure the 
severity of God's judgment. I reply, he ought to shudder 
in undertaking to defend the opposite sentiment. Sup- 
pose, for a moment, that any man could say, he has indeed 
fulfilled the precept of God in some one good work. Then 
such a man might fairly address the Almighty to this 
effect : (i Behold, O Lord, by the help of thy grace, I have 
done this good work. There is in it no sin ; no defect ; 
it needs not thy pardoning mercy : which, therefore, in 
this instance I do not ask. I desire thou wouldest judge 
this action strictly and impartially. I feel assured, that, 
as thou art just and faithful, thou canst not condemn it ; 
and therefore I glory in it before thee. Our Saviour's 
prayer teaches me to implore the forgiveness of my tres- 
passes \ but in regard to this work, mercy is not necessary 
for the remission of sin, but rather justice for the reward 
of merit." To such indecent, unchristian conclusions are 
we naturally led by the pride of the scholastic system ! 
This doctrine of the sinless perfection of human works * 
finds no support in Scripture : it rests entirely on a few 
expressions of the Fathers, who are yet by no means 
agreed among themselves, and if they were agreed, still 
their authority is only human. We are directed to prove 

* It is the works of the godly that are the subject of inquiry ; the 
charge against which Luther here defends himself is, his having main- 
tained that the very best acts of the best men have the nature of sin. 



xxiv PREFACE. 

all things and to hold fast that which is good. All 
doctrines then are to he proved by the sacred Scriptures. 
There is no exception here in favour of Augustine, of Jerome, 
of Origen, nor even of an antichristian Pope. — Augustine, 
however, is entirely on my side of the question. . . . 
Such are my reasons for choosing to call that sin to 
which you apply the softer terms of defect and imper- 
fection. But farther, I may well interrogate all those, who 
use the language of Latomus, whether they do not resemble 
the Stoics in their abstract definition of a wise man, or 
Quintilian in his definition of a perfect orator; that is, 
whether they do not speak of an imaginary character, such 
as never was, nor ever will be. I challenge them to pro- 
duce a man, who will dare to speak of his own work, and 
say it is without sin. — Your way of speaking leads to most 
pernicious views of the nature of sin. You attribute to 
mere human powers that which is to be ascribed to divine 
grace alone. You make men presumptuous and secure in 
their vices. You depreciate the knowledge of the mystery 
of Christ, and, by consequence, the spirit of thankfulness 
and love to God. There is a prodigious effusion of grace 
expended in the conversion of sinners : j^ou lose sight of 
this ; you make nature innocent, and so darken or pervert 
the Scripture, that the sense of it is almost lost in the 
christian world.' — I make no apology for these instructive 
extracts. c The matter of this controversy must always be 
looked on as of the last importance, if any thing is to be 
called important, in which the glory of God, the necessity 
of the grace of Jesus Christ, the exercises of real humility, 
and the comfort of afflicted consciences are eminently 
concerned/ 

c Luther concludes his book with observing, that he is 
accused of treating Thomas Aquinas, Alexander, and 
others, in an injurious and ungrateful manner. He defends 
himself by saying, those authors had done much harm to 
his own mind j and he advises young students of divinity 



PREFACE. xxv 

to avoid the scholastic theology and philosophy as the ruin 
of their souls. He expresses great doubts whether Thomas 
Aquinas was even a good man : he has a better opinion of 
Bonaventura. Thomas Aquinas, says he, held many here- 
tical opinions, and is the grand cause of the prevalence of 
the doctrines of Aristotle, thajt destroyer of sound doctrine. 
What is it to me, if the Bishop of Rome has canonized him 
in his bulls ?' 

Valuable, however, as this work is, it will admit of no 
comparison with the truly herculean and apostolic labour, 
in which he was interrupted by performing it. c You can 
scarcely believe, says he, with how much reluctance it is, 
that I have allowed my attention to be diverted from the 
quiet study of the Scriptures in this Patmos, by reading 
the sophistical quibbles of Latomus/ And again; 6 1 really 
grudge the time spent in reading and answering this worth- 
less publication — particularly as I was employed in trans- 
lating the Epistles and Gospels into our own language/ 

We who sit at ease, and, when we have leisure or inclin- 
ation to read a chapter in the Bible, have nothing to do but 
take down our Bible and open it where we please, are apt 
to forget the labour which it cost to furnish us with that Bible 
in our native language, and the perils by which we were re- 
deemed into the liberty of reading it with our own eyes, and 
handling it with our own hands. We especially, who have 
fallen upon times, in which, through the manifest counsel 
and act of God, out of the supposed three hundred lan- 
guages and dialects of the earth, versions of the Scriptures 
are now circulating throughout the whole of the known 
world in more than one hundred and forty, and to whom it 
is a rare thing to meet with an individual who has it even 
in his heart, much less upon his tongue, to put any limits 
to the circulation of the sacred volume, are ill prepared, by 
our own feelings and experience, to estimate the boon of a 
Bible now for the first time edited in the vernacular 
tongue. But Luther had not only to fight for the right to 



xxvi PREFACE. 

read, but to labour that they might have whereupon to 
exercise that right. ( Luther easily foresaw the important 
consequences which must flow from a fair translation of 
the Bible in the German language. Nothing would so 
effectually shake the pillars of ecclesiastical despotism ; 
nothing was so likely to spread the knowledge of pure 
christian doctrine. Accordingly he rejoiced in the design of 
expediting the work, whilst his adversaries deprecated the 
execution of it, more than any heresy of which the greatest 
enemy of the church could be guilty/ Accordingly, he 
had begun, and was preparing himself by the more accu- 
rate study of the original languages for the completion of 
his work, when drawn off by Latomus : an enterprise, 
which required the silence and seclusion of his Patmos 
for its origination and commencement, but which could 
not be satisfactorily completed, without larger resources 
than he possessed there. c I find, says he, I have under- 
taken a work which is above my strength. I shall not 
touch the Old Testament till I can have the assistance of 
yourself and my other friends at Wittemberg. If it were 
possible that I could be with you, and remain undiscovered 
in a snug chamber, I would come ; and there, with your 
help, would translate the whole from the beginning, that 
at length there might be a version of the Bible fit for 
Christians to read. This would be a great work, of im- 
mense consequence to the public, and worthy of all our 
labours/ 

This arduous task was at length accomplished : the New 
Testament, as I have already mentioned, being published 
in 1522; the Old Testament afterwards, in parts, till 
completed in 1530. e In this work he was much assisted 
by the labour and advice of several of his friends, parti- 
cularly Jonas and Melancthon. The whole performance 
itself was a monument of that astonishing industry which 
marked the character of this reformer. The effects of this 
labour were soon felt in Germany; immense numbers now 



PREFACE. xxvii 

read in their own language the precious word of God, and 
saw with their own eyes the just foundations of the 
Lutheran doctrine.' — What an Ithuriel's spear did the 
Lord thus enable him to put into the hands of the mass of 
the people ! No wonder that the Papists should cry out 
and burn. — What, in fact, lias upheld the Popedom but 
ignorance of the book ? and what is ultimately to destroy 
it, according to Luther's intelligent and enlightened antici- 
pation of that event, but the knowledge of the Book ? 
( The kingdom of Antichrist, according to the Prophet 
Daniel's prediction, must be broken without hand ; that 
is, the Scriptures will be understood by and by, and every 
one will speak and preach against the papal tyranny from 
the word of God ; until this man of sin is deserted by all 
his adherents, and dies of himself. This is the true christian 
way of destroying him ; and to promote this end, we ought 
to exert every nerve, encounter every danger, and undergo 
every loss and inconvenience.' — The wonder is, that, in 
our days, individuals shall I say ? numbers rather, compre- 
hended in that communion, are zealous for the dissemination 
of the Scriptures in the spoken language of their country; 
whilst one of these, towering high above the rest, has been 
the favoured instrument of distributing more than three hun- 
dred thousand copies of a German version of his own, 
besides many thousands of this very version of Luther's.* 

6 To decide on the merits of Luther's translation would 
require not only an exact knowledge of the Hebrew and 
Greek, but also of the German language ; certainly it was 
elegant and perspicuous, and beyond comparison prefer- 
able to any scriptural publication which had before been 
known to the populace. It is probable that this work had 

* I need scarcely mention the name of Leander Van Ess. But is 
there no opposition to this work, amongst the Roman Catholics ? Are 
there not divisions and fiercest persecutions amongst them on this very 
ground ? And where, and what, are the Bible Societies of Spain, Por- 
tugal, Bavaria and the Italian States ? 



xxviii PREFACE. 

many defects ; but that it was in the main faithful and 
sound, may be fairly presumed from the solid understand- 
ing, biblical learning and multifarious knowledge of the 
author and his coadjutors. A more acceptable present 
could scarcely have been conferred on men, who were 
emerging out of darkness ; and the example being followed 
soon after by reformers in other nations, the real know- 
ledge of Scripture, if we take into account the effects of 
the art of printing, was facilitated to a surprising degree/ 

The papistical plagiarist Emser endeavoured first to 
traduce, and afterwards to rival and supersede him : but 
his correct translation was, in fact, little more than a 
transcript of Luther's (he was himself notoriously ignorant 
of the German language), some alterations in favour of the 
Romish tenets excepted ; so that Luther was read under 
Emser's name, and the Lord gave him grace to say with 
his heart, " Notwithstanding, whether in pretence or in 
truth, Christ is preached, and I therein do rejoice, yea, 
and will rejoice." 

It was not without manifesting, from time to time, a 
considerable degree of impatience, that Luther was de- 
tained even for ten months in his solitude : action was his 
element, and it was painful to him to sit still. < For the 
glory of the word of God, and for the mutual confirmation 
of myself and others, I would much rather burn on the live 
coals, than live here alone, half alive and useless. If I 
perish, it is God's will ; neither will the Gospel suffer in 
any degree. I hope you will succeed me, as Elisha did 
Elijah !' — I could wish he had not written this last sentence 
to his friend Melancthon. — However, after ten months, 
the state of his beloved Wittemberg concurred with his own 
self-centered likes and dislikes, to render it manifestly 
desirable for the church's welfare, and so, by just inference, 
the clear will of God, that he should hazard his life and 
safety by leaving his retreat and returning to his public sta- 
tion in the then capital of infant Protestantism. Melancthon 



PREFACE. xxix 

■wanted spirits and vigour ; the elector wanted boldness and 
decision; Carolstadt was become tumultuous; the flock 
was in the state of sheep without a shepherd ; the enemy 
was crying, " There, There/' Having already made one 
short visit by stealth, and finding that an occasional inter- 
position would no longer meet the difficulty, he deter- 
mined to risk all, and knowing the elector as he did, to 
act first, and then apologize. Accordingly, he left Wart- 
bura\ and wrote his noble letter to him from Borna, on his 
way, in which he freely opened his motives and expect- 
ations, delivering Frederic from all responsibility for his 
safety, and testifying his entire and alone confidence in the 
divine protection. Having done so, he pursued his journey 
with no real or even pretended safeguard, but Him who 
is invisible. — c I write these things that your highness may 
know, I consider myself in returning to Wittemberg to be 
under a far more powerful protection than any which the 
elector of Saxony can afford me. To be plain, I do not 
wish to be protected by your highness. It never entered 
my mind to request your defence of my person. Nay, it 
is my decided judgment, that, on the contrary, your high- 
ness will rather receive support and protection from the 
prayers of Luther and the good cause in which he is em- 
barked. It is a cause which does not call for" the help of 
the sword. God himself will take care of it without human 
aid. I positively declare, that if I knew your highness 
intended to defend me by force, I would not now return to 
Wittemberg. This is a case where God alone should 
direct ; and men should stand still, and wait the event 
without anxiety; and that man will be found to defend 
both himself and others the most bravely, who has the 
firmest confidence in God. Your highness has but a very 
feeble reliance on God ; and for that reason I cannot think 
of resting my defence and hopes of deliverance on you.' 
If I were to put my finger on the most splendid moment 
of Luther's life, I should fix it at Borna. All the mag- 



xxx PREFACE. 

nanimity, courage and perseverance which he displayed after- 
wards, were but the acting of that Spirit which he had then 
evidently received : the fruit and effect of the Lord's most 
full and most clear manifestation of Himself, as that which 
he is, to his soul. This enabled him to cast his die in 
God. He cast it at Wartburg, he declared it at Borna. — 
His return to Wittemberg was healing, confidence and 
peace to his scattered, agitated and mistrustful flock. 

Luther's valuable life was preserved to the church, for 
twenty-four years, after his return to Wittemberg. In 
these, he had first to build, which he found more difficult 
than to destroy ; then, to protect, extend, uphold and per- 
petuate his infant establishment.* He had to provide 
against the rapacity of the secular arm, without making 
ecclesiastics rich ; to obtain learned instructors of the 
people, without feeding hives of drones ; to make the 
untaught teachers ; to abolish pomp without violating 
decency. Often he was at a loss what to advise ; and 
often he was obliged to adopt what was only second best 
in his own eyes. The press was the great weapon of his 
warfare, and of his culture ; his publications extended to 
a vast variety of subjects, and it may be truly said, he had 
thought and knowledge, matter and weight for all. We 
are to remember, that he was all this while like a vessel 
living in a storm ; not only an excommunicated man (he 
had excommunicated in return), but an outlaw, under the 
ban of the empire ; whom any body that dared might have 
seized and delivered up to justice : — is not this the man 
whom the Lord holdeth with His right hand, keepeth as 
the apple of His eye, and spreadeth a table for in the 
midst of his enemies ? 

Nor were his professed enemies his worst: the slow 
caution of the elector, the timidity of his coadjutors, the 

* It was an acknowledged principle with him, as with our reformers, 
to alter as little as possible. He was more of a Cranmer than a 
Knox. 



PREFACE. xxxi 

madness of the people — fleshly heat assuming the name 
and garb of religious fervour — lust of change — every body 
must be somebody — envy, debate, clamour, and his own 
native obstinacy, were more to him than the Eckiuses and 
the Aleanders, the Conclave and the Emperor I 

The character of Luther is sufficiently obvious from this 
mere hint at his history. Magnanimous, capacious, absti- 
nent, studious, disinterested, intrepid, wise, c He feared 
God, he feared none else.' Early in life he had been made 
to drink deep into the knowledge of his own wickedness, 
accountableness, lostness and impotency. Melancthon tells 
of him, that, while he was deeply reflecting on the astonish- 
ing instances of the divine vengeance, so great alarm would 
suddenly affect his whole frame, as almost to frighten him to 
death. I was once present, when, through intense exertion 
of mind in the course of an argument respecting some 
point of doctrine, he was so terrified as to retire to a 
neighbour's chamber, place himself on the bed, and pray 
aloud, frequently repeating these words, " He hath con- 
cluded all under sin, that he might have mercy upon all/' 
This sensibility of conscience prepared him for a trembling 
reception of the divine word. We have seen how the Lord 
threw it in his way. For a considerable time it spake 
only terrors to him. u Therein is the righteousness of 
God revealed/' stirred him up to blasphemy. At length 
the Lord had pity on him, and opened his eyes, and 
shewed him that the righteousness of God there spoken of 
is not His own essential righteousness, which renders Him 
the hater and punisher of iniquity, but a substance which 
He has provided to invest sinners withal ; and thus, this 
very expression which had proved a stumbling-block to 
him became his entrance into Paradise. In process of 
time, the Lord revealed the mystery of this righteousness 
somewhat more distinctly to him. He shewed him that 
the Lord Jesus Christ was in his own person this righte- 
ousness ) and that to enter into Him, and to put Him on, 



xxxii PREFACE. 

by faith, was to be righteous, before God ; that the merit 
of Christ was complete for justification ; that nothing was 
to be added, or could be added to it, by a sinner ; and that 
it was received by faith only. Thus far the Lord gave 
him clearness of sight, though not fulness ; and that 
speedily : after, and beyond this, He left him to blunder ; 
aye, and to the end of his days. — Now therefore, "it 
having pleased God, who had separated him from 
his mother's womb, and called him by his grace, to 
reveal his Son in him, straightway he conferred not with 
flesh and blood ;" " he could not but speak the things 
which he had heard and seen;" " he was ready not to be 
bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of 
the Lord Jesus/ 5 * 

God gave three special endowments to this chosen wit- 
ness ; which are the characteristics of his testimony : 
great knowledge of Scripture, great talent for abstruse 
and elaborate argumentation, and a singular felicity in 
addressing the common people. f In illustration of the 
first of these, his whole works may be appealed to, if his 

* If his faults be required, he had, in him, every fault under heaven. 
In Mm, that is, in his flesh, dwelt no good thing ; that is, dwelt every 
bad thing. His within was like ours. " For from within, out of the 
heart, &c. &c." But if, as should rather be, what came out of him 
chiefly, that is evil, be inquired, his vices, as is the nature of evil, were 
his virtues run mad : he was obstinate, fierce, contemptuous, vain. — 
He was not unkind, as some would represent him ; he had " bowels of 
mercies:" he was not rash; no man more deliberately weighed his 
words and deeds : he was not implacable ; witness his attempts to con- 
ciliate that greatest of all bears, the Duke George, our tiger Henry, 
Carolstadt, Erasmus, and even the Pope. 

f This does not imply that he always interpreted Scripture rightly, or 
saw all the truth ; any more than his skill in arguing implies that he 
always arrived at right conclusions, or proceeded to them by just 
steps. — His excellency in addressing the common people, let it be 
observed, did not consist in his having one doctrine, cr one reason, for 
them, and another for the learned ; he had one Gospel for all, and told 
it all out to all ; but he had powers of language — facility of illustration 
and simplicity of expression — which made him intelligible and affecting 
to the most illiterate. 



PREFACE. * X xiii 

translation of the Bible be not proof enough : for the 
second, his disputations with Eckius, Latomus and Eras- 
mus—specially the treatise which follows ; for the last, all 
his numerous tracts and sermons, particularly his address 
to the common people on the breaking out of the rustic 
war. — His commentary on the Galatians furnishes speci- 
mens of the three. 

Such was the man, whom the Lord raised up, called, 
forth and employed, as the most prominent, active and 
efficacious of his blessed workfellows, in accomplishing 
the Reformation ! But how strange is it, that man will 
look but at half of God, and at the surface only of that half, 
when His whole self stands revealed ; and when it is the 
very aim and contrivance of his operation, to effect that 
complete display ! The Reformation was God's act — an 
act, inferior only to those of Calvary and of the Red Sea, 
for manifesting his mighty hand, and his outstretched arm — > 
which he accomplished by doing all in all that Luther did, 
and all in all that Luther's enemies did; by working in 
Charles as well as in the Elector ; in Leo as well as 
Luther; in Cajetan, Campeggio, Prierias, Hogostratus, 
and the whole train of yelping curs and growling mastiffs, 
which were for baiting and burning the decriers of Baby- 
lon, as in Jonas, Pomeranus and Melancthon. Indeed, if 
we would estimate this transaction aright, as a displayer 
of God, we must not only inspect the evil workers, visible 
and invisible, as well as the good, but must mark the steps 
by which He prepared for his march, and the combinations 
with which He conducted it ; we must see Constantinople 
captured by the infidel, and the learned of the East shed 
abroad throughout Christendom ; we must see the barba- 
rian imbibing a taste for letters, and the art of printing 
facilitating the means of acquiring them; we must see 
activity infused into many and various agents, and that 
activity excited by various and conflicting interests ; we 
must see rival princes, and vassals hitherto bowed down 



xxxiv PREFACE. 

to the earth, now beginning to ask a reason of their govern- 
ors; we must see a domineering Charles, a chivalrous 
Francis, a lustful and rapacious Henry, a cannonading 
Solyman, a dissipated Leo, a calculating Adrian, a hesi- 
tative Clement — German freedom, Italian obsequiousness, 
Castilian independence, Flemish frivolity, Gallic loyalty, 
Genoa's fleet and Switzerland's mercenaries, Luther's 
firmness, Frederic's coldness, Melancthon's dejectedness, 
and Carolstadt's precipitancy — made, stirred and blended 
by Him, as a sort of moral chaos, out of which, in the ful- 
ness of his own time, He commandeth knowledge, liberty 
and peace to spring forth upon his captives in Babylon. 

Luther describes himself, we have seen, as a rough 
controversialist: controversy was his element; from his 
first start into public notice, his life was spent in it. — I 
hope my reader has learned not to despise, or even to 
dread controversy. It has been, from the beginning, the 
Lord's choice weapon for the manifestation of his truth ; 
just as evil has been his own great developer. What are 
Paul's and John's Epistles but controversial writings ? 
What was the Lord's whole life and ministry but a con- 
troversy with the Jews ? Luther well knew its uses, and 
had tasted its peaceable fruits : it stirs up inquiry ; it stops 
the mouth of the gainsayers; it roots and grounds the 
believers. Still, there were three out of his many, from 
which he would gladly have been spared; they were 
maintained against quondam friends. In the first of these 
he was all in the right, but not without question ; in the 
second, all in the wrong, without question ; in the third, all 
in the right, without question : without question, I mean, 
not as respects any public trial which has been held, and 
judgment given, but before the tribunal of right reason. 

6 Andreas Bodenstenius Carolstadt, unheard, uncon- 
victed, banished by Martin Luther.' — What ! Luther 
become a persecutor ? he who should have been a martyr 
himself, make martyrs of others ? Not so ; but charged 



PREFACE. xxxv 

with doing so, and appearances against him ! — Honest 
Carolstadt — there is some question whether he truly 
deserves this name — was a turbulent man. He had no 
hearty relish for Luther's ' broken without hands ;' 
though a learned man, and still a professor at Wittem- 
berg, he gave out that he despised learning, and, having 
placed himself at the head of a few raw and hot-brained 
recruits, raved at the papal abuses which still remained 
amongst them, and proceeded to remove them with 
hands, by breaking images and throwing down altars. 
This disorderly spirit gave the first impulse to Luther's 
return. < The account of what had passed at Wittemberg, 
he said, had almost reduced him to a state of despair. 
Every thing he had as yet suffered was comparatively 
mere jest and boys' play. He could not enough lament, 
or express his disapprobation of those tumultuous pro- 
ceedings ; the Gospel was in imminent danger of being 
disgraced, from this cause.' Carolstadt fled before him ; 
became a factious preacher at Orlamund ; was banished by 
the elector ; restored at length through the intercession of 
Luther ; reconciled to him, but without much cordiality ; 
and at length retired into Switzerland, where he exercised 
his pastoral office in a communion more congenial with 
his own sentiments, and died in 1531. Such is the short 
of Carolstadt; one of Luther's earliest defenders, who 
turned to be his rival and his enemy, and with whom he 
waged a sort of fratricidal war, for some years after his 
return from Wartburg, in conferences, sermons and 
treatises : of the last of these, his f Address to the Celes- 
tial Prophets and Carolstadt' is the principal. Of his 
banishment it is unquestionable that Luther was not the 
author, though he thoroughly approved it ; nay, on his 
submitting himself, he took great pains to get him restored : 
he could not succeed with Frederic, he did with John. 
Still I have thought him repulsive, arbitrary, and ungene- 
rously sarcastic in his resistance to this Carolstadt; even as 

c2 



xxxvi preface:. 

I have thought him unwarrantably contemptuous and 
exclusive in his comments and conflicts with the Munzer- 
ites, and somewhat too confident in shifting off all influence 
of his doctrine from the rustic war. Hence my expression, 
* not without question.' But, on a closer review, I find 
clear evidence that Carolstadt really was what Luther 
charged him with being — whimsical, extravagant, false and 
unsettled in doctrine ; a preacher and a practiser of sedi- 
tion — that he had moreover united himself to Munzer and 
his associates, and had thereby obtained a niche amongst 
the Celestial Prophets. I find clear evidence that Stubner, 
Stork, Cellery, Munzer and the rest were a nest of design- 
ing hypocrites; raging and railing, and making preten- 
sions to divine favour, which they neither defined, nor 
defended. — His test of false prophecy and false profession, 
too, let it be remarked, is sound, efficacious and prac- 
ticable ; though perhaps founded (I refer to his test of 
conversion) rather too positively and exclusively upon his 
own personal experience. Again ; I find Luther's doctrine 
so clear in marking the line of civil subordination that it 
was impossible for the peasants, or those who made them 
their stalkinghorse, to urge that Luther had taught them 
rebellion. Nor was it less than essential to sound doc- 
trine, that he should disclaim, and express his abhorrence 
of their error. — With the exception of that part of the con- 
troversy therefore, which respected his Sacramentarian 
error, Luther had right on his side : and on that subject, 
Carolstadt, though right in his conclusion was so defective 
in his reasoning, so fickle, so versatile, and so disingenuous, 
that he defeated his own victory. 

In the second of these controversies, which, although 
broached by Carolstadt, soon fell into abler hands, and 
was at length settled by abler heads than his,* Luther 

* Zuingle and GEcolam^adius, the former at Zurich, and the latter 
at Basil, were the great defenders of the faith, in this cause ; who, 
notwithstanding the authority, ponderosity, calumnious ness, and inflexi« 



PREFACE. xxxvii 

was lamentably wrong ; wrong in his doctrine, and wrong 
in the spirit with which he defended it : — an affecting 
monument of what God-enlightened man is; who can 
literally and strictly see no farther than God gives him 
eyes to see withal, and for whose good it is not, and 
therefore for God's glory in whom it is not, that he should 
see every thing as it really is, but should in some par- 
ticulars be left to shew, to remember and to feel, u the 
rock whence he was hewn, and the hole of the pit whence 
he was digged." Is there any exception to this remark 
amongst human teachers and writers ? Can we mention 
one, on whose writings this mark has not been impressed, 
so as to make it legible that we are reading a book of 
man's, not of God's ? 

Luther held, that 6 the real substance of the Lord's 
body and blood was in the bread and wine of the Eucha- 
rist, together with that previous substance which was 
bread and wine only :' a tenet, involving all the absurdity 
of popish transubstantiation, together with the additional 
one, that the same substance is at the same instant of two 
dissimilar kinds. 

bility of Luther, manifested to the uttermost in opposing them, were 
enabled to " bring forth judgment unto truth." Zuingle's great work 
is a commentary on true and false religion, published in 1525, to which 
he added an appendix on the Eucharist. (Ecolampadius's principal 
performance is a treatise f On the genuine meaning of our Lord's words, 
* This is my body/ published about the same time : of which Erasmus, 
in his light and profane way, said, * it might deceive the very elect / 
and, being called, as one of the public censors, to review it, declared to 
their high mightinesses, the senate of Basil, that it was, in his opinion, 
a learned, eloquent and elaborate performance — he should be disposed 
to add * pious/ if any thing could be pious which opposes the judg- 
ment and consent of the church. Zuingle testified his sense of 
the importance of the question by remarking in his letter to Pomeranus, 
' I do not think Antichrist can be completely subdued, unless this error 
of consubstantiation be rooted up.' CEcolampadius traces the origin of 
the doctrine of the real presence to Peter Lombard -, and contends 
that every one of the Fathers had held that the words ' This is ray 
body/ were not to be taken literally. 



xxxviii PREFACE. 

Now, although the word of God requires us to receive 
many things as true which are beyond the testimony of 
sense, and above the deductions of right reason, it no- 
where calls us to receive any thing contrary to these. In 
what page, or chapter, or verse of the Bible are we called 
to believe a palpable contradiction ? This negative ap- 
plies, by the way, not only to the abstruser articles of the 
faith, the coexistence of three coequal persons in the 
one divine essence, the Godman-hood of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and the reality of divine and diabolical agency 
within the human soul, but also to those simpler verities 
which affirm what are called the moral attributes of God, 
and have been strangely marred and confounded by 
neglecting it. Luther, for instance, perplexed to recon- 
cile what is commonly understood by these with his repre- 
sentations of truth, has gone the length of maintaining 
that we do not know what these are in God : whereas, if 
justice, faithfulness, purity, grace, mercy, truth &c. &c. 
be not essentially the same sort of principles in God, as 
in his moral creatures, we can know nothing, we can 
believe nothing, we can feel nothing rightly concerning 
him. How these may consist with each other, and with 
his actings, is a distinct consideration : but it is a bungling, 
a false, and a pernicious expedient for solving difficulties, 
to deny first principles ; and, if our very ideas of moral 
qualities, even as respects their essential nature, be im- 
pugned and taken from us, we cease to be moral beings. 

The tenet of consubstantiation, then, is contradictory 
i)oth to sense and reason. Four of our senses testify 
against it, whilst only one can claim to bear witness in 
its favour. If the disciples heard the Lord affirm it, and 
if we hear it from their writings, our sight, our touch, our 
taste, our smell, assure us that it is bread, and nothing 
but bread, which we are pressing with our teeth.* — The 

* It was this sort of argument which brought the infidel Gibbon 
back to the Protestant faith, from which he had been seduced 'That 



PREFACE. xxxix 

same body can only be extended in one place at the same 
instant : the Lord's body therefore, which is at the right 
hand of God, cannot be in any place where the sacrament 
is administered ; much less in the various places in which 
it is administered at the same moment ; any more than the 
bread which he held in his hand when he instituted the 
ordinance could occupy the same place as the hand itself. 
Luther talked much of ubiquity ; but what is the ubiquity 
of the Lord's body ? Are we not expressly taught that it 
is extended, and remains for a season, in one place ? " So 
then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received 
up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God j" u Who 
is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God." 
<e Who is even at the right hand of God." " Sit on my right 
hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." " Whom 
the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of 
all things."- — Besides, what precludes all dispute, He has 
in reality now no such body and blood to give. ei There is 
a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." cc Flesh 
and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." He did 
indeed turn his spiritual body into a natural one, by 
miracle, for some moments, at sundry times, after his 
resurrection, in order that he might give competency to 
his witnesses — '* Even to them which did eat and drink with 
him after he rose from the dead" — but his abiding, ordi- 
nary subsistence, ever since, has been in a body which no 
teeth could manducate, no lips enclose. 

All Luther's stress was upon the words c This is my 
body :' he carried that sound and just principle of his, 
' Interpret Scripture literally, not tropically, where you 
can,' to a false and even ridiculous extreme here ; in oppo- 
sition to his own admitted exception, 6 unless an evident 

the text of Scripture which seems to inculcate the real presence is 
attested only by a single sense, our sight — while the real presence itself 
is disproved by three of our senses.' See his ' Memoir of my Life and 
Writings/ vol. i. p. 5S, 



xl PREFACE. 

context, and some absurdity which offendeth against one 
of the articles of our faith, in the plain meaning, constrain 
us to such interpretation/ (See Part iv. Sect. iii. p. 239. 
of the following work.) Is this the only instance of such 
a form of speech ? Circumcision, elsewhere called the 
token of the Abrahamic covenant, is, in some places, called 
the covenant ; the two tables of stone are called the cove- 
nant ; the lamb is called the passover; the rock stricken 
in Horeb is called Christ. Besides, if the bread be con- 
substantiated into his body, the cup should also be con- 
substantiated into a testament ; " this cup is the new tes- 
tament." And when we have eaten this flesh, and drunken 
this blood (if such act were possible) by a carnal mandu- 
cation and deglutition, what has it done for us ? As if 
flesh could nourish spirit ; or, as if Christ's flesh (Luther 
dreamed that it was so) were spirit.' 

Luther diminished the impression of his general cha- 
racter as a reasoner, and invalidated the authority of his 
argumentations, by an elaborate and ingenious obstinacy 
in this controversy. He gave himself the air of an orator 
who could descant upon a broomstick, and could defend 
a bad cause as vehemently as a good one, by exhausting 
the great powers of his mind in forcible appeals and 
sophistical illustrations to establish this unfounded tenet. 
Not that he knew, or thought, he was advocating false- 
hood — his only palliation is, he was honest ; aye, honest 
to his dying hour ; for however he might regret the heat 
of spirit and of language into which he had gone out 
against his opponents, he never made any concession with 
respect to his doctrine, but declared it amidst the concus- 
sion and relentings of a severe sickness in 1526, and con- 
tinued to preach and write upon it to the last. The spirit 
he had manifested, he did regret ; and well he might. He 
had maintained it like a wild bull in a net, calling 
names, and making devils of his adversaries — who, to say 
the least, were as pure, as learned and as laborious, if 



PREFACE. xli 

not so commanding in their aspect, so exalted in their 
sufferings, and so brilliant in their successes, as he — and 
the rending of the mantle which should have covered 
Switzerland as well as Germany, and made both one 
against the foe of both, was more his than theirs.* This 

* Take an instance of the toil and sweat of his argumentation ; take 
an instance, or two, of the calumnious fierceness with which he pursued 
these fraternal adversaries. 

« But it is absurd to suppose the body of Christ to be in more than 
a hundred thousand places at once. — This is not more absurd than the 
diffusion of the soul through every part of the body. Touch any part 
of the body with the point of a needle, and the whole man, the whole 
soul is sensible of the injury. If then the soul be equally in every part 
of the body, and you can give no reason for it, why may not Christ be 
every where, and every where equally, in the sacrament ? Tell me, if 
you can, why a grain of wheat produces so many grains of the same 
species ; or why a single eye can fix itself at once on a thousand 
objects, or a thousand eyes can be fixed at once on a single minute 
object. — Take another example. What a feeble, poor, miserable, 
vanishing thing is the voice of a man ! Yet what wonders it can per- 
form — how it penetrates the hearts of multitudes of men ! and yet not 
so as that each person acquires merely a portion of it, but rather as if 
every individual ear became possessed of the whole. If this were not a 
matter of experience, there would not be a greater miracle in the whole 
world. If then the corporeal voice of man can effect such wonders, 
why may not the glorified body of Christ be much more powerful and 
efficacious in its operations ? — Farther ; when the Gospel is preached 
through the exertion of the human voice, does not every true believer, 
by the instrumentality of the word, become actually possessed of Christ 
in his heart ? Not that Christ sits in the heart, as a man sits upon a 
chair, but rather as he sitteth at the right hand of the Father. How 
this is no man can tell ; yet the Christian knows, by experience, that 
Christ is present in his heart. Again, every individual heart pos- 
sesses the whole of Christ ; and yet a thousand hearts in the aggregate 
possess no more than one Christ. The sacrament is not a greater 
miracle than this/ 

' The Sacramentarian pestilence makes havoc, and acquires strength 
in its progress. Pray for me, I beseech you, for I am cold and torpid. 
A most unaccountable lassitude, if not Satan himself, possesses me, 
so that I am able to do very little. Our ingratitude, or perhaps 
some other sin, is the cause of the divine displeasure : certainly our 
notorious contempt of the word of God will account for the present 
penal delusion, or even a greater. I was but too true a prophet, when I 
predicted that something of this kind would happen. — If I had not known 



xlii PREFACE. 

acrimonious controversy, deplorable on many accounts, 
but not without its direct and collateral benefits, began in 

from experience, that God in his anger did suffer men to be carried 
away with delusions, I could not have believed that so many, and so 
great men, would have been seduced by such trifling and childish rea- 
sonings, to support this pestilentious, this sacrilegious heresy. ... I am 
all on fire to profess openly for once my faith in the sacrament, and to 
expose the tenets of our adversaries to derision in a few words ; for 
they will not attend to an elaborate argument. I would have published 
my sentiments long ago, if I had had leisure, and Satan had not thrown 
impediments in my way. . . . Factious spirits always act in this way. 
They first form to themselves an opinion which is purely imaginary ; 
and then torture Scripture to support that opinion. ... He gave him- 
self seriously to the work, and produced, in the month of February or 
March, a most elaborate treatise, in the German language, on the 
words ' Take, eat, this is my body/ against the fanatical spirits 
of the Sacramentarians. . . . They lay no stress on any thing except 
their Sacramentarian tenet. Devoid of every christian grace, they 
pretend to the sanctity of martyrs, on account of this single opinion. 
. . . They would persuade one that this was the great, the only concern 
of the Holy Ghost ; when, in reality, it is a delusion of Satan, who, 
under the pretence of love and concord, is raising dissensions and mis- 
chiefs of every kind/ — In the celebrated conference at Marpurg, pro- 
posed and accomplished by the landgrave of Hesse in 1529, for the 
purpose of mutual conciliation and peace — though the Sacramentarians 
begged hard to be acknowledged as brethren, and even went so. far as to 
own repeatedly, that the body of Christ was verily present in the Lord's 
Supper, though in a spiritual manner, and Zuingle himself, in pressing 
for mutual fraternity, declared with tears, that there was no man in 
the world with whom he more earnestly wished to agree, than with the 
Wittemberg divines — the spirit of Luther proved perfectly untractable 
and intolerant. It seems he had come with a mind determined not to 
budge one inch upon this point. Accordingly, * nothing more could be 
gained from him than that each side should shew christian charity to 
the other as far as they could conscientiously ; and that both should 
diligently pray God to lead them into the truth. To go further, Luther 
maintained, was impossible ; and expressed astonishment that the Swiss 
divines could look upon him as a christian brother, when they did 
not believe his doctrine to be true. In such circumstances, however, 
though there could be no such thing as fraternal union, the parties, he 
allowed, might preserve a friendly sort of peace and concord ; might do 
good turns to each other, and abstain from harsh and acrimonious 
language.' The vehemence, in fact, was not confined to one side, 
though the Swiss had learned more of modern manners than the 
Lutherans, and could cut deep without appearing to carry a sword ', 



PREFACE. xliii 

1524, and continued to and beyond Luther's death : the 
churches which pass under his name still retain his 
dogma. 

In the last of these controversies, I pronounce him all in 
the right ; right, I would be understood to mean, as respects 
his conclusion and his opponent, though he adduces some 
arguments which might have been spared, and does not 
always exhibit a full understanding and correct use of his 
weapons. 

Erasmus, who was Luther's predecessor in age by 
about sixteen years, had done the reformers some service ; 
chiefly by facilitating the knowledge of the ancient lan- 
guages through his successful researches in literature, but 
not a little by employing his peculiar talent of ridicule 
upon some of the grosser abominations of Popery. Not 
that he had any hearty concern about these ; but he was 
a man born pour le rire — he was all for his jest — and 
monks and friars furnished him with a subject which he 
did not know how to reject. Like Lucian and Porphyiy 
therefore, he, without seriously meaning it, prepared the 
way for a better faith, by turning much of the old into 
derision. He was indignant to be thought a sceptic ; and 
many now-a-days think him hardly used by such an in- 
sinuation. But is not every one who trifles with his soul 
a sceptic ? and what is the great multitude of professing 
Christians but such a company of triflers, who, if they 
were brought to the test, would act what he said in I lis 
irony, 6 God has not given every body the spirit of 
martyrdom?' 

Erasmus, however, had committed himself in some 
degree to the cause of the reformers, by speaking well of 

whereas the Lutherans growled more than they hit, in this fight. — 
Still our business is with the wrong of Luther. He provoked first, he 
spoke worst ; their acrimony was no excuse for his. His was the fury 
of a great man brought to the level of, or even below his equals ; whom 
he would fain count his inferiors, and treat as his vassals. 



xliv PREFACE. 

them, specially of Luther, and acquiescing in many of 
their dogmas. In 1520, when the bull was preparing, and 
when the bull was out, he had both written and spoken a 
very decided language in Luther's favour : e God had sent 
him to reform mankind ;' ' Luther's sentiments are true, 
but I wish to see more mildness in his manner;' ' The 
cause of Luther is invidious, because he at once attacks 
the bellies of the monks, and the diadem of the Pope/ 
c Luther possesses great natural talents ; he has a genius 
particularly adapted to the explanation of difficult points 
of literature, and for rekindling the sparks of genuine 
evangelical doctrine, which have been almost extinguished 
by the trifling subtilties of the schools. Men of the very 
best character, of the soundest learning, and of the most 
religious principles, are much pleased with Luther's books; 
in proportion as any person is remarkable for upright 
morals and gospel-purity, he has the less objections to 
Luther's sentiments. Besides, the life of the man is 
extolled, even by those who cannot bear his doctrines. It 
grieved him that a man of such fine parts should be ren- 
dered desperate by the mad cries and bellowings of the 
monks/ When pressed by the Pope's legates to write 
against Luther, he answered, ( Luther is too great a man 
for me to encounter. I do not even always understand 
him. However, to speak plainly, he is so extraordinary a 
man, that I learn more from a single page of his books 
than from all the writings of Thomas Aquinas/ — Still, as 
the cause advanced, Erasmus did not advance with it, but 
receded. Vanity, a love of the praise of men, was his 
ruling passion ; and the particular mode of it, a desire to 
stand high with great men — with princes, dignified eccle- 
siastics, and all who were highly thought of — to stand 
high, specially on the ground of extreme moderation ; 
such as became a man of letters. He would be an Atticus 
in his day. To join heartily with the reformers was not 
the way to achieve this object; they were despised by the 



PREFACE. xlv 

rulers, and, what was still more provoking, they would not 
make him a king even among themselves. 

c Micat inter omnes 
Julium sidus, velut inter ignes 

Luna minores.' — Hor. 

But he was not that Luna, Luther was that Luna. What 
was to be done therefore, but to pout, and distinctly sepa- 
rate himself from them ; giving the princes clearly to 
understand, that they were mistaken if they thought him 
one of them ? Thus, by a sort of dexterous manoeuvre, he 
would kill two birds at once ; avenge the injury of his 
6 spreta forma,' and open a way for the sun and stars to 
shine in upon him. He confessed this in his answer to 
Luther : ' As yet I have not written a syllable against 
you ; otherwise I might have secured much applause from 
the great ; but I saw I should injure the Gospel. I have 
only endeavoured to do away the idea that there is a per- 
fect understanding between you and me, and that all your 
doctrines are in my books. Pains have been taken to instil 
this sentiment into the mind of the princes, and it is hard 
even now to convince them that it is not so/ Luther 
would have been glad that the matter should rest here. 
Erasmus had done all the service he was made for ; but 
let him not become their enemy : he was a successful 
sharpshooter; some of his shots would hit, annoy and 
dismay. There were underlings, however, in Luther's 
camp, as well as in the Pope's : and these had not quite 
mind enough to preserve Luther's line. They would step 
beyond it ; they lampooned the satirist ; hinted pretty 
broadly what he was, and made him little to his great ones. 
Luther tried to abate the shock of their attack ; but it was 
too late. The enemy had been beforehand with him. 
Hemy of England had implored, Adrian in two epistles 
had supplicated, duke George had demanded, Tunstall 
had conjured, Clement had persuaded : and all this, whilst 
the sting of the wasps was yet sore, Luther makes his 



xlvi PREFACE. 

last attempt to pacify him : with great forbearance, yet 
not trenching upon sincerity 5 with some galling hints as 
to the real state of the cause, but, as Erasmus himself 
allowed, with sufficient civility. c I shall not complain of 
you, for having behaved yourself as a man estranged from 
us, to keep fair with the Papists, my enemies ; nor that 
you have censured us with too much acrimony/ . . . .' The 
whole world must own with gratitude your great talents 
and services in the cause of literature, through the revival 
of which we are enabled to read the sacred Scriptures in 
their originals. — I never wished that, forsaking or neglect- 
ing your own proper talents, you should enter into our 
camp/ . . . , c I could have wished that the complaint of 
Hutten had never been published/ . . . . f I am concerned, 
as well as you that the resentment and hatred of so many 
eminent persons hath been excited against you. I must 
suppose that this gives you no small uneasiness ; for vir- 
tue like yours, mere human virtue, cannot raise a man 

above being affected by such trials' c What can I do 

now ? Things are exasperated on both sides ; and I could 
wish, if I might be allowed to act the part of a mediator, 
that they would cease to attack you with such animosity, 
and suffer your old age to rest in peace in the Lord ; and 
thus they would conduct themselves, in my opinion, if 
they either considered your weakness, or the magnitude 
of the controverted cause, which hath been long since 
beyond your capacity. They would shew their moderation 
towards you so much the more, since our affairs are 
advanced to such a point, that our cause is in no peril, 
although even Erasmus should attack it with all his might; 
so far are we from fearing any of his strokes and stric- 
tures.' . . . . c Our prayer is, that the Lord may bestow on 
you a spirit worthy of your great reputation ; but if this 
be not granted, I entreat you, if you cannot help us, to 
remain at least a spectator of our severe conflict ; and not 
to join our adversaries; and in particular not to write 



PREFACE. xlvii 

tracts against us ; on which condition I will not publish 
against you/ 

All is in vain : to preserve his gold, to shew his grati- 
tude for what he has already received, and (except he be 
barbarously treated) to earn more, his pledges must now 
be redeemed, and out comes the Diatribe.'* 

He vapours much about the great danger of publishing 
it : f no printer at Basil would dare to undertake his 
or any work which contained a word against Luther. 3 
6 The die is cast, he tells Henry (to whom he had sent a 
part of the manuscript for his approbation) ; my little book 
on Freewill is published : a bold deed, believe me, if the 
situation of Germany at this time be considered : I expect 
to be pelted ; but I will console myself with the example 
of your majesty, who has not escaped their outrages/ 
Conscience speaks out, when he says to Wolsey, c I have 
not chosen to dedicate this work to any one, least my 
calumniators should instantly say that in this business I 
had been hired to please the great : otherwise I would 
have inscribed it to you, or to the Pope/ His ruling 
passion speaks out, when he declares the mighty conse- 
quences which he expected from his publication. He 
writes to Tunstall ; ( The little book is out ; and, though 
written with the greatest moderation, will, if I mistake not, 
excite most prodigious commotions. Already pamphlets 
fly at my head/ 

Such was the birth of the Diatribe ; the offspring of a 
peevish, dissatisfied, vain man ; who had tampered with 
both parties, and pleased neither, but was now sufficiently 
determined which side he would be of, yet aimed still to 
preserve his favourite character of moderation. It is the 
work of a great scholar, but not of a deep thinker ; ' of 
one who had scoured the surface of his question, but by no 

* He feared losing the pension which he received from England. 
Clement had made him a present of tM'o hundred florins. He had 
received most magnificent promises from popes, prelates and princes. 



xlviii PREFACE. 

means penetrated into its substance ;' of one who knew 
what is in the Bible, but did not understand the Bible : 
imposing, but not solid ; objurgatory and commendative ; 
but neither disproving what he blamed, nor establishing, 
or even denning, what he approved. Yet is this a perform- 
ance, such as, not careless persons only, but half the tribe 
of professedly serious gospellers will defend, and do in 
substance maintain, in opposition to Luther's ; nay, many 
that call and account themselves Calvinists, or Calvinistic 
(I am by no means an advocate for names — it is character 
and principle, not sect or party, that I would uphold), are 
in heart and understanding, if not avowedly, Freewillers 5 
squaring, as they seek to do, the testimony of Jesus Christ, 
the Son of God, to the deductions of blinded human rea- 
son, and making a God for themselves, by blending shreds 
and patches of Scripture with shreds and patches of their 
own imagination, instead of simply studying, lying at the 
feet of, and inhabiting, that living and true One, whom the 
Bible has been written and published to make known. — I 
subscribe my testimony to Luther's, that it is tedious, 
distractive, illusory, false and pernicious. 

Luther hesitated about answering it; but at length 
consented to do so, for reasons which he declares in the 
introduction of his letter : if he was to answer such a 
production of such a man upon such a subject, why, it 
must be done as he has done it — with all his might. He 
that would see Luther, therefore, may behold him here. 

Erasmus replied in two distinct treatises under the 
name of Hyperaspistes, c defender as with a shield ;' the 
first, as he tells us, written in ten days, that it might be 
ready for the ensuing Frankfort fair (the great mart for 
literature as well as commerce, in that day) — a passionate 
and hasty effusion, in which he did not give himself time 
to think ; the second, a very long and highly-laboured 
performance, in which ' he was completely unfettered, and 
completely in earnest, and, if he had been able, would. 



PREFACE. xlix 

without the least mercy, have trampled on Luther, and 
ground him to powder/ ( Diis aliter visum.' i This 
second book is very long and very tedious ; but the tedi- 
ousness, of which every reader must complain, is not owing 
to much to the length of the performance, as to the con- 
fusion which pervades it throughout. The writer is kept 
sufficiently alive, amidst great prolixity, by the unceasing 
irritation of his hostility and resentment ; but the reader 
is fatigued and bewildered, by being led through obscure 
paths one after another, and never arriving at any distinct 
and satisfactory conclusion. A close attention of the mind 
to a long series of confused and jumbled propositions 
wearies the intellect, as infallibly, as a continued exertion 
in looking at objects difficult to be distinguished exhausts 
the powers of the most perfect organs of vision." 

Luther did not rejoin to this twofold reply : he well knew 
that Erasmus was fighting for victory, not for truth, and 
he had better things to do than write books merely to repeat 
unanswered arguments. There was nothing of argument 
in the Hyperaspistes, which had not been answered in his 
Bondage of the Will ; even as there was nothing in the 
Diatribe, which had not been in substance advanced and 
confuted many times before. The Letter, or Treatise, 
which is now presented to the public must, therefore, be 
considered as containing Luther's full, final, and, as he 
deemed it, unrefuted and irrefragable judgment, on the 
state of the human will. 

That state is, according to Erasmus, a state of liberty ; 
according to Luther, a state of bondage. Such is the sub- 
ject and position brought into debate by Erasmus, and 
accepted as matter of challenge by Luther. 

The accurate Locke, whose name I would ever recite 
with veneration and gratitude, has shewn that the ques- 
tion is improperly stated. The will, he says in substance, 
is but a power of the human mind, or, of the man ; free- 
dom is also a power of the man; to ask, therefore, 

d 



1 PREFACE. 

whether the will be free is to ask whether one power of 
the man possesses another power of the man ; which 
is like asking, whether his sleep be swift, or his virtue 
square; liberty being as little applicable to the will, 
as swiftness of motion is to sleep, or squareness to 
virtue. The proper question is, not whether man's will 
be free, but whether man be free : and this he determines 
that he is, in so far, and only so far, as he can by the 
direction or choice of his mind, preferring the existence 
of any action to the non-existence of that action, and vice 
versa, make it to exist, or not exist ; liberty being a power 
to act, or not to act, according as we shall choose, or, will. 
If however the improper question be still urged, whether 
the will be free, it must be changed into this form; is 
man free to luill? that is, has he liberty in the exercise of 
his will ? Now thijs must respect either the act of exercising 
his will ; or the result of that exercise, the thing chosen. 
As to the former of these, he determines, that, in the greater 
number of cases, man has not liberty ; for when any action 
in his power is once proposed to his thoughts, as presently 
to be done, will lie must : in the latter, he determines, that 
he cannot but have liberty ; he wills what he wills, he is 
pleased with what he is pleased with. To make a ques- 
tion here, is to suppose that one will determines the acts 
of another, and that another determines that ; and so on 
in infinitum* — In this latter assertion, Luther, it must be 
remarked, is as explicit as Locke ; maintaining expressly, 
that a compelled will is a contradiction in terms, and 
should be called Noluntas, rather than Voluntas : non- 
will, rather than vAll. (See Part i. Sect. xxiv. p. 69.) 

The schoolmen, from whom Luther and Erasmus took 
this question (Erasmus first on this occasion — but then 
Luther had taken it up before), made a distinction between 
the absolute faculty of the will, and that faculty as exer- 
cised, or, in action. Their question was not, an sit libera 

* See Locke's Essay, vol. i. pp. 195—200. b. ii. c. 21. 



PREFACE. li 

voluntas, but an sit lihenim arbitrium ? a distinction, in 
fact, without a difference : because, what is the subject 
matter about which they were disputing ? not a dormant 
faculty surely, but a faculty such as it is when exercised ; 
for how else can its nature and properties be ascertained ? 
Luther is as perceptive as Locke himself here. Erasmus, 
in his definition of Freewill, calls it f that power of the 
human will by which a man is able to turn himself to 
those things which appertain to his salvation, or to turn 
himself away from them :' in reality meaning to interpose 
a something between the will and its actings. Luther, 
when canvassing this definition, denies that there can be 
any such tertium quid; and uses a language so very like 
Locke's, that it might well draw from his historian the 
remark, i Luther, with as much acuteness as if he had 
studied Mr. Locke's famous chapter on power, replies &c.' 
' But, what is meant by this same power ( applying itself 
and turning away itself;' except it be this very willing 
and refusing, this very choosing and despising, this very 
approving and rejecting ; in short, except it be i the will 
performing its very office ;' I see not. So that we must 
suppose this power to be ' a something interposed between 
the will itself and its actings :' a power by which the will 
itself draws out the operation of willing and refusing, and 
by which that very act of willing and refusing is elicited. It 
is not possible to imagine or conceive any thing else here.' 
See Part iii. Sect. ii. p. 132. 

But this false distinction opens a door to the solution 
of the whole difficulty. Their improper question has been, 
c Is the ivill free ?' The proper question would be, i Is the 
understanding free ?' that is, has the man's will all the 
case before it, when he decides upon any given ques- 
tion ? A blind understanding will lead to a false deter- 
mination, though that determination be made without any 
thing approaching to compulsion. Now this I apprehend 
to be just the true state of the case : the natural man, 

d2 



lii PREFACE. 

having his understanding darkened, being alienated from 
the life of God, through the ignorance that is in him, be- 
cause of the blindness of his heart ; and being, moreover, 
possessed by the devil, whose energizing consists in main- 
taining and increasing his blindness ; forms his decisions 
and determinations upon partial and false evidence. The 
same observation extends to the spiritual man, in so far 
as he is not spiritual ; in so far as his flesh, through which 
the devil acts upon him, is allowed in subserviency to the 
great general principle, c God's glory in his real good/ to 
influence the determination of his will. So that it is the 
judgment, perception, or understanding, not the will, cor- 
rectly speaking, which is really in bondage ; that faculty, 
which presents objects to the determining faculty, presenting 
them erroneously, either by suppressing what ought to be 
made present, or giving a false colour or distorted appearance 
to that which is, and ought to be, there. This suggestion 
will explain the paradox, that the will is at the same time 
free and not free, in popular language : free, inasmuch as 
from its very nature it cannot be compelled ; not free, 
inasmuch as it acts in the dark : so that it may more fitly 
be called blind-will, than hond-ivill ; which is Luther's 
term. This suggestion will go further; it will explain all 
mysteries and all paradoxes : Paul's conflict in Romans 
vii. — Pharaoh's induration — our own daily experience — 
nay, the whole system of God's government, in ruling, as 
he does, a world of moral beings — flee before it. Only 
such considerations as He makes present can really con- 
stitute the materials of any judgment which we form, and 
consequently of any determination which we can come to, 
with respect to our own actings : that is, our volitions^ 
whilst free, are subject to His agency, and, through the 
means of our perceptions, His will becomes ours. — I have 
adopted throughout, however, the language of the com- 
batants ; which is also the language of common life. I 
speak of the will as free, or in bondage j and I use the 



PREFACE. liii 

term Freewill, as expressive of some supposed power in 
man, separating it into a sort of distinct substance, and 
almost continually personifying it. 

Let it be conceded then, that the question is not cor- 
rectly worded; that the proper inquiry is, not whether 
man's will be free, but whether man be free ; or rather, 
as we have just seen, whether his perceptive faculty be 
clear and entire : still the substance of the debate remains 
unaltered, and its importance unimpaired. Essentially, 
we are ascertaining what is the moral state of man ; and 
the considerations, nay, even the expressions, introduced 
into many parts of the discussion, will shew that it is not 
an abstract and isolated question about the will which we 
are entertaining, but an investigation of our Adam soul. 
What shall be called momentous, if this subject be not so ? 
What can be understood, if this be unknown ? Of what 
sort is the Christ of an ignorant Freewiller ? (See Part i. 
Sect. v. vi. vii. viii.) The truth is, ignorance of the real 
state of man lies at the root of all religious ignorance, and 
it is, manifestly, the ordained, arranged and continually 
operated course of the Lord's dealings with his people to 
bring them to the knowledge, use and enjoyment of Him- 
self through the means of deep, minute, self- emptying 
and self-abasing self-knowledge. How can this be, but 
by opening to us the abyss of impotency as well as crime, 
of blindness as well as enmity,, into which we have freely 
plunged ourselves ? 

It is the peculiarity of this treatise to explore the pre- 
sent state of the human soul by the aid of scripture testi- 
monies and scriptural reasonings, exclusively ; without one 
syllable of abstract philosophical investigation beyond what 
is absolutely necessary to the writing and reading upon it 
intelligibly.* Luther was not ignorant of metaphysics ; 

* I was once asked, why, with such an excellent treatise as Jonathan 
Edwards's, and others, in our own language, I thought it necessary to 
revive Luther. Here is my answer. Your great metaphysicians decom- 



liv PREFACE. 

he had been thoroughly trained in Aristotle and the school- 
men : if he forbore to use such weapons, it was because 
he disdained them ; I should rather say, because, according 
to his own testimony as recited already, he had found 
them pernicious. Erasmus sometimes compels him to 
break a lance of this kind \ when he gives full proof that 
he could have handled such weapons dexterously, if he 
had deemed them to be the weapons of the sanctuary. 
One who was no common speculator, and no unskilful 
arbitrator, has said of him ; ' Even in the metaphysical 
niceties, which could not be entirely avoided in this ab- 
struse inquiry, he proved greatly his (Erasmus's) over- 
match/ But those who have really submitted themselves 
to the authority of Scripture, and have drunk deep of it 
to know the Father's testimony concerning Jesus, will feel 
that, as this subject is the most momentous which can 
engage the human soul, so this method of investigating it 
can alone be expected to yield a satisfactory conclusion. 
They will rejoice therefore, that such a man as Erasmus — 
a man well acquainted with the letter of Scripture (so 
Luther testifies of him — qui sic nostra omnia perlustra- 
vit — Part iii. Sect. vi. note e ) — should have delivered his 
challenge in the form of an appeal to the canonical 
Scriptures only; and that such a man as Luther, who 
had penetrated to no inconsiderable depth in the mines 

pound man ; and, if they could, would decompound God. Your great 
theologians do the same. But if we would really know either man or 
God, we must tirst learn to take the Bible for granted — that it is the' 
word of God — and then study both, as therein drawn and described : not 
imagining a God for ourselves, by decking out some we know not what 
substratum with a number of what we call attributes; but remember- 
ing, that what we hear called His attributes are in reality parts of His 
essence, and considering, that it is that good one who hath devised, 
fore-ordained, and in his appointed time manifested the Lord Jesus 
Christ as the image of Himself, in his person and in his actings — which 
is our God ; and that we ourselves are parts of that Adam, by his deal- 
ings with, and declarations concerning which, in Christ, He has been, 
and is, effecting the manifestation of what He himself is. 



PREFACE. lv 

of that volume, should have accepted and brought it to 
issue. 

The order of the argumentation is minutely shewn in 
the Table of Contents which follows, and is afterwards 
noticed at the head of each Part and Section. I shall only 
premise therefore, that, after a short Introduction, Luther 
pursues the order of Erasmus's march (who, desultory as 
he is, furnishes us with a clue for his labyrinth), first 
examining his Preface, then his Proem, then his testi- 
monies, then his pretended refutation, and afterwards 
establishing his own position by direct proof : he concludes 
the whole with a pathetic address, even as each Part ex- 
hibits a specimen of the ( melting mood,' in its close. It 
is a common idea, that Luther wanted softness ; yet the 
once cloistered, but afterwards conjugal and paternal 
monk, could weep, be gentle, be compassionate, be a little 
child. 

The form of the treatise is epistolary : it is truly no- 
thing else but a letter to Erasmus \ and therefore I have 
preferred the division of parts to that of chapters — con- 
sidering chapters of a letter as anomalous, though we are 
accustomed to it, I grant, in our distribution of the Scrip- 
tures : this division however, it is to be remembered, has 
no authority, and has led to much misconstruction ; Locke 
advises those who would understand Paul to disregard it. 
I have only one caution to give with respect to these Parts ; 
which is, that the reader do not suffer himself to take 
fright at some of the less inviting gladiations of the first 
Part — not that I account them uninteresting, but that the 
work increases in interest, as it proceeds. I trust the reader 
will find it so, and will remember meanwhile, that we 
must make a way to the walls, as well as storm them. 

I cannot compliment Luther upon his style : the sen- 
tences are long, the ideas multifarious ; the words often 
barbarous, their collocation inharmonious. But there is 
always meaning in what he says, although that meaning be 



lvi PREFACE. 

not always obvious, or clear : he is sometimes elaborately 
eloquent, and often simply so. The language is like the 
man. He is Hercules with his club, rather than Achilles 
with his sword ; more of a Menelaus than an Ulysses ; 
always forcible, sometimes playful ; drawing w r ires now 
and then ; never leaving a loophole for his adversary to 
escape through, but dragging him through many of his own. 

The excellences of this treatise are, a noble stand for 
truth on its proper ground — God's testimony unmixed with 
man's testimony (see Part ii. Sect, i — xii.) ; that ground 
cleared from objection (Partii. Sect. xiii. xiv.); an integral 
part of the truth of God firmly set upon its base (see Part 
iii. Part iv. Part v.) ; much of it, besides, collaterally and 
incidentally asserted or implied — proved, or left to clear 
and palpable inference : so that a man need not fear to 
say, ( Give me Luther, and I will give you the truth/ 

But Luther has not given it us, either in this treatise, 
or elsewhere ; the defects of his theological system being 
manifest in this best of his best,* as well as his other per- 
formances : I say c theological system ;' because truth is 
one vast whole, not a number of disjointed and dissevered 
propositions — a whole made up of many parts, which, 
whilst distinct, are yet so closely interwoven and com- 
pacted with each other, that it is scarcely possible to dis- 
cern any one of these as it really is, without discerning 
each, and all, and that whole. Let those who deny sys- 
tem in the Bible say what they understand by 'H aXyOeia 
(the truth) ; let those who deny system in the Bible say 
why this should be a name for that counsel, or plan, which 
God is executing in Christ ; why it should be a name for 
Christ; why it should be a name for God.f If God be 

* ( It may not be improper to observe, that Luther himself, many 
years afterwards, had so good an opinion of it, as to declare, that he 
could not review any one of his writings with complete satisfaction, 
unless perhaps his Catechism and his Bondage of the Will.' 

f See John i. 17. xiv. 6. Eph. i. 13. iv. 21. Col. i. 5. 1 John v. 20. 



PREFACE. lvii 

himself the only truth, the true one ; if Christ be his 
Image ; if the counsel, or system of divine operations, 
which is in Him, be the image of that Image ; if the Gos- 
pel, or doctrine of the kingdom of God, be the word or 
declarer of that counsel ; we can have no difficulty in 
understanding why one and the same term should be 
applied to all these various subjects. They are all, in 
various regards, the truth. Nor is it a sound objection 
to say, c this revered man did not see it there/ or, c that 
revered man did not see it there ;' it may be there still : and, 
if it be not there, God has come short of His object in reve- 
lation, which is, not to reveal a proposition, but to reveal 
Himself. Let every one so study the Bible as to get to 
know God by it ; which he cannot do, except he realize 
what is there written, in him, and realize it as a whole : 
let him at the same time take this caution — he is to get his 
whole, not by murdering or stifling any part, but by giving 
its fair, well-considered and authenticated meaning to each 
and every portion of the testimony. 

The defects of this treatise, then, are the defects of 
Luther's theological system. It was not given to him 
to discern, that all God's dealings with creatures are 
referable to one vast counsel, devised, ordained and 
operated for the accomplishment of one vast end; that 
this vast end is the manifestation of God ; that this coun- 
sel is in all its parts (not in that only which respects 
man's redemption, but every jot of every part) laid, con- 
ducted and consummated in and hy Christ — the eternally 
predestinated, and in time very, risen god-man* (see 
Part ii. Sect. viii. note r . Part iii. Sect, xxxii. note s ) ; 
much less was it given to him to discern the structure and 
materials of that counsel by which God is effecting this 
end — that Adam, meaning not the personal Adam only, 
but all that was created in him, even the whole human 

* See, amongst other places, John i. 1—14. 1 John i. 1, 2. Coloss. 
i. 15—20. Heb. i. Prov. viii. 22—31. Micah v. 2. 



lviii PREFACE. 

race, is the great and capital subject of His self-manifest- 
ing operations. (See Part iii. Sect, xxviii. notes l v x . Sect, 
xxxvii. note l &c.) Though he had some insight into the 
mystery of Christ's person (see Part i. Sect. iii. ; also Sect, 
xvi. note n ) — that He was verily God and man, a coequal 
in the Trinity made man through the Virgin's impreg- 
nation by the Holy Ghost, he was not fully led into the 
mystery that his person is constituted by taking a human 
person, the spiritualized man Jesus, into union with his 
divine person, and that he has been acting in this person, as 
inspired, not by his own godhead, but by the Holy Ghost,* 
from the beginning — having subsisted as the glorified 
God-man first predestinately and secretly, up to the period 
of his ascension ; and now, ever since that period, really 
and declaredly — doing the will of the Father continually, 
not his own will, by the Holy Ghost's inspiration, not his 
own ; thus exhibiting the Trinity in every act he performs, 
which is, in deed and in truth, every act of God. His 
human person, moreover, was marvellously formed, so as 
to be at the same time both son of Adam and son of God ; 
the Holy Ghost's impregnation gave him a spotless soul -, 
the daughter of Adam gave him a sinful body : thus he 
became the sinless sinner ; thus he that knew no sin was 
made sin for us, and was in all points tempted like as we 
are, without sin ; that same Holy Ghost which had begotten 
him sinless, keeping him without sin amidst all the tempt- 
ations of the world the flesh and the devil, until he had 
died to sin once, and his mortality had been swallowed up 
of life. — Into this depth of the mystery of Christ's person,f 

* See especially Matt. xii. 28. Acts i. 1, 2. ii. 22 &c. x. 38. 

f The essence of Christ's person is God-man-hood : He is God the 
equal of the Father and of the Holy Ghost : He is man by the concep- 
tion of the Holy Ghost in the Virgin ; He is God-man in one substance, 
through that union of his God person with his man person, which is 
effected by the agency of the Holy Ghost ; Who, being one in essence 
with his God person, inhabiteth that manhood of His which he hath 
generated. What is that manhood so generated ? Its essence is a pure, 



PREFACE. lix 

of which the essential element is c union yet distinct- 
ness' — both as it respects his divine and human person, 
and as it respects his oneness with us — it was not given 
to Luther to penetrate. (See as before, Part ii. Sect. viii. 
note r . Part iii. Sect xxii. note s ; also Part v. Sect. xxii. 
note t . Sect, xxviii. note °.) Again; although it was 
given him to see the fact of- man's coming into the world 
guilty (which he ascribes to his being born of Adam (see 
Part v. Sect, xx.), and that entire vitiation of his nature, 
as brought into the world with him, which renders him 
both vile and impotent (a fact which he assumes, and 
reasons upon, throughout the whole of his treatise, but 
see especially Part iv. Sect, x.) ; he was not led to see the 
mystery of the creation and fall of every individual of the 
human race, male and female, in and with Adam.* (See 
Part iv. Sect. x. note z . Part v. Sect. xx. note p .) Again ; 
though it was given him to see the fact that there are 
elect and reprobate men, God having predestinated some to 
everlasting life and others to everlasting death; he had no in- 
sight into that covenant-standing in Christ, and the appro- 
spotless, sinless spirit inhabiting (in the days of his fiesh, and whilst 
yet it was flesh and blood) a sinful body. Romans i. 3, 4. rightly inter- 
preted, confirms this satisfying account of the matter : ,: Who was 
made of the seed of David according to the fiesh, that is, the body; 
Who was declared to be Son of God with power, according to the spirit 
of holiness — that is, according 1 to his spirit ichich teas holy (the oppo- 
sition, I maintain, is between his flesh and his spirit)— -from the period 
of his resurrection (eg avac-coeivs). The whole tenour of Scripture 
declaration falls in with this view. His body is his connecting link 
with manhood, that is, with Adam-hood : Son of man is not man 
merely ; man any how begotten, any how made, any how existent (as 
the Lord God might have made five hundred species of men) ; but Son 
of Adam, one who has his being some how through and of the stock of 
Adam. 

* The notes referred to are explicit and full ; but take an illustration, 
which may be of use to some, 1. from the case of Rebekah, Genesis xxv. 
21 — 23. (. . . " Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people 
shall be separated from thy bowels) ; and 2. from Heb. vii. 9, 10. (For 
he was yet in the loins of his Father, when &c) 



lr PREFACE. 

priatencss of His work, consequently, to the elect, which 
renders God just in acting a difference between them, whilst 
the original and eternal separation is of a law beyond just- 
ice — even of that sovereignty which knows no limit but 
omnipotency. Thus he was not only left, through his igno- 
rance of God's plan and counsel, without any insight into 
that blessed and glorious principle which reconciles the spi- 
ritual mind to the severity of his appointments — for how, 
else, shall that paramount end of God-manifestation be 
accomplished ?— -but he was even obliged to give up the 
justice of God (which, both verily and discernibly, is with- 
out a flaw in this procedure) and to take refuge in a most 
pernicious falsehood, e that we know nothing about God's 
justice, and must be content to be ignorant what it is, till 
the day disclose it.' Why, if justice, truth and all other 
moral excellencies be not in Him essentially what they 
are in us, and according to our spiritual conceptions of 
him, ' chaos is come again :' we know nothing — nothing 
of God — He has revealed himself in vain. (See Part iii. 
Sect, xxviii. notes * v x . Sect, xxxvii. note K Part iv. 
Sect. xv. note n . Part v. Sect, xxxiii. note e .) Again ; 
whilst it was given him to see something of the freeness 
and completeness of a sinner's justification in and by 
Christ, it was impossible, from the very nature of that 
ignorance which hath already been ascribed to him, that 
he should see it correctly and perfectly : he neither saw 
the eternal justification which they received in Christ 
Jesus, distinctly, personally and individually, before the 
world began — God engaging to raise them up to Him as 
his accepted ones, for the sake of the merits of His death ; 
nor did he see with precision what constituted their atone- 
ment made in time ; nor did he see the state into which 
they were hereby brought, and have from the beginning 
been dealt with as though they had been meritoriously 
brought — a state of gracious acceptance, in which they 
can bring forth, as He is pleased to enable them, and 



PREFACE. lxi 

actually do bring forth, as He is pleased to enable them, 
fruit unto God : nor did he see that, whilst their crown is 
a free crown, the Lord has so arranged, and so brings it 
to pass, that it shall be a righteous thing in God to put a 
difference between the righteous and the wicked ; there 
being a mind in the one, which is correlative to the mani- 
festation He has made and is making of himself in his 
new-creation kingdom, whereas in the other there is 
nothing but enmity to Him, as so displayed. Again ; 
though he had some insight into the nature of Holy- 
Ghost-influences, the other parts of his ignorance were 
incompatible with true" and correct knowledge here. He 
did not see that the gift of the Holy Ghost is, in fact, the 
gift of His personal presence and agency; altogether a 
super-creation gift, a gift in Christ; had, ivhen and as 
God has been pleased to arrange to give it — had therefore, 
when it be good for his people to have, and withheld, as 
to manifestation, when it be good that they have it not ; 
in nowise contributing to the justification, properly so 
called, of a sinner, though enabling the manifestedly justi- 
fied to shew their justification. "When I say, i in nowise 
contributing/ I mean that none of their acts performed 
by and in the Spirit, are what contribute the least particle 
to their acceptance. They are foreknown freely, pre- 
destinated freely, called freely, justified freely (that is, 
have their absolution from all sin testified to them freely) 
glorified freely; whilst it is the Holy Ghost who alone 
enables, nay constrains them to believe, thereby exhibit- 
ing in their persons an obedience to the divine command- 
ment,* and putting a badge upon them which declares 

* God has given a commandment, " Repent ye, and believe the Gos- 
pel ;" " And this is his commandment, that we believe on the name &c." 
This command is congruous to that manifestation which he makes of 
himself in his super-creation kingdom ; say rather, is congruous to what 
He himself is — He being, even as He hath hereby shewn himself to be, 
the God, who, in perfect harmony and consistency with all other per- 
fections, is love, grace and mercy. The giving of this commandment, 



lxii PREFACE. 

that they are in the number of those for whom Christ 
according to the will of the Father — thus evinced to be 
the will of the sacred and coequal Three — in due time died. 
Luther's ignorance on this subject led him to speak of 
Adam's having the Spirit, of the Spirit's being our law- 
fulfiller, and of the Jewish church, as not having been 
justified by the law, because they had not the Spirit. (See 
Part iv. Sect. x. note z . Part v. Sect. x. note z .) As if the 
Spirit of grace were a creational, natural, or legal possession! 
Again ; whilst he saw the Law to be a condemning pre- 
cept, he did not understand its real nature, form and 
design ; that it was an interpolation, typical in all its 
parts, preparatory, temporary; whose glory was to be 
done away. (See Part hi. Sect. xxiv. note K Part v. Sect. 
x. xi. xii. xiii.) This ignorance led him to bring it back 
upon the people of God, instead of banishing it for ever ; 
to heap burdens with his left hand, which he had hardly 
removed with his right. He was not led to apprehend the 
distinct nature, as well as end, of Law obedience and Gospel 
obedience : that obedience to the Law, which he sub- 
stantially, if not in word, demanded, is not only an obeying 
for life instead of an acting of the life given ; but is even 
a denying of God to be what He is and is manifesting 
himself to be, whilst we profess to be believing in Him, 
and serving Him.* 

and the receiving of his people according to it, falls in with his great 
design of God manifestation, by drawing out, as it does, what is in man, 
and shewing him as dealing with what is so drawn out, according to 
justice and equity. — It no way disparages the freeness of the grace, whilst 
it manifests to the uttermost the justness of the indignation. — Which 
of the reprobate disobeys the Gospel edict, because he counts himself 
to be a reprobate ? and which of them has any right to deal with him- 
self as such ? 

* The law is a perfect transcript of creation man's duty, in enigma ; 
typical emblem of Christ as the unblemished Lamb, and of the law of the 
Spirit of life which is laid up in Him (" Your lamb shall be without 
blemish," Exod. xii. 5. . . . " And put the tables in the ark which I had 
made," Deut. x. 5. ..." A new covenant ... I will put my laws into 



PREFACE. lxiii 

These are some of the principal defects of Luther's 
theology :* which he manifests, as might be expected, in 

their mind, etc/' Heb. viii. 8 — 11.), and real teacher that Adam cannot 
obey his Maker ; say rather, that creature, as creature, cannot fulfil the 
law of his sort. But grace has a new mind to study, and is cast into 
a mould correspondent to that mind — brought to a mind which is of 
much higher tone, and of other string, than that which God taught and 
demanded at Sinai. 

* I would be understood as not pretending to make full and accurate 
references in proof of Luther's seeings and not sesings (which would, 
in fact, be to analyze and anatomize the whole of his work), but merely 
to give a hint at each. — And now, I well know how I shall be arraigned 
of arrogancy, for having dared to controvert his positions, nay more, to 
judge and to condemn him. 1 can only say, as Luther did at Worms ; * Here 
1 stand. I cannot do otherwise. May God help me. Ameri.' — It is the 
fashion to speak of Luther and the rest of the reformers as little less 
than inspired men, and of the sera of the Reformation, as the season of 
an effusion of the Spirit : the same sort of expression has been applied 
also to later times ; to a supposed, and, as I will hope, real revival of 
religion which took place in Whitfield's time. Such expressions are 
unwarranted : I know but of one effusion, when, " being by the right 
hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of 
the Holy Ghost, Jesus did shed forth that which was seen and heard," 
on the day of Pentecost. Granting, therefore, what I would by no 
means dispute, that it has been the Lord's blessed will from the begin- 
ning to make peculiar display of his Spirit at certain seasons— as in 
private and personal experience, so in the community of his people — 
and not sticking at a word, but calling this, if you please, effusion* • 
what is the extent of the benefit ? It is not meant that the atmosphere 
is impregnated with spiritual influences, so that all who live at such a 
period, and within the circle of it, are made partakers of the boon. 
Else, whence come the Cai'aphases and the Alexanders, the Felixes and 
the Caesars ? It goes no farther, than that certain persons are pecu- 
liarly taught, strengthened and comforted at these seasons ; and that the 
number so instructed and enlivened is greater than in ordinary times. 
It does not follow, that the blessed Spirit hath, at these seasons, taught 
and shewn all that ever is to be taught and shewn of God and of his 
truth. The Bible and other records shew, that there has, on the con- 
trary, been a progression in His teaching ; in the manner of revealing, 
if not in the matter revealed. Though all truth be contained in, " And 
I will put enmity between thee and the woman &c." this truth has been 
made plainer, in various degrees, since the beginning • to Abraham, to 
Moses, to David, to the Prophets, the Evangelists and the Apostles. 
It would not be adventurous to affirm, that, as the Prophets spake to as 
well as of the Apostles' days; so the Apostles have spoken to as well 



lxiv PREFACE. 

this elaborate treatise. I have dealt fairly, as I believe, 
both with his excellencies and with his defects. It has 
been my endeavour to give the most faithful rendering I 
could to his whole text, and to every word and syllable of 
it. His excellencies, which, if I have succeeded in my 
endeavour, cannot be hidden, I have made yet more con- 
spicuous by extricating each point of his argument, and 
specifying it distinctly, with the numbers 1.2. 3. &c. pre- 
fixed. His errors and defects 1 have endeavoured to 
obviate and to supply, severally, by telling out the truth. 
My statements are ample, but I am not aware that they 
are prolix. I have desired to consult brevity; and, in 
some instances, have obtained, as I fear, the reward of 

of later times ; times yet for to come. Is it sacrilege or blasphemy to 
say, that what Paul and John wrote and spake shall be better under- 
stood, and is even now better understood, generally in the church, than 
it was by their own immediate hearers and readers, if not by themselves. 
It would be preposterous surely to affirm, that nothing has been added 
to the store of evangelical learning, since Luther's time, by the dis- 
covery of additional manuscripts, and by the collation of them ; by the 
improved knowledge of the original languages ; by the illustrations of 
travellers, and other sources of intelligence, inquiry and communi- 
cation. Whilst all other knowledge is progressive, why should biblical 
knowledge be stationary? Has it, in fact, been so ? is it even yet so ? 
And it is plain, this remark does not apply to the elucidation of pro- 
phecy exclusively ; it extends to the counsel and truth of God. Take 
our fourth Article as a specimen. In Luther's and our reformers' time, 
I suppose every body expected to rise with a flesh and blood body, as 
that Article speaks — in spite of Paul's clear words. But now, we have 
been taught with what sort of a body the Lord rose, and what sort pf 
an one we may look to be clothed with, ourselves. — (See 1 Cor. xv. 
44 — 54. See also Bishop Horsley's Nine Discourses on our Lord's 
Resurrection.) — These hints must be my defence against the supposed 
arrogancy of impugning and correcting Luther. The Reformation did 
not absorb the spiritual Sun, any more than former or later periods had, 
or have done so. He still continues to shoot forth his rays, when and as 
it pleaseth Him ; and those on whom they fall have already received their 
direction how to deal with them, from his own mouth, where He says, 
" No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or 
putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which 
enter in may see the light." Luke viii. 16. 



PREFACE. lxv 

laboured brevity, by becoming obscure. But I hope not 
often so. 

The reader must have seen already, that, if I was to 
publish Luther, it must be with notes. I honestly believe, 
that he would be unintelligible without; as well as defective 
and fallacious. I have therefore adhered rigidly to two 
simple principles throughout, c Luther, all Luther, and 
nothing but Luther, in the text; my own sentiments, 
whether agreeing with, or contradicting his, in the notes/ 

Now, if it be asked why, in all wonder, have you 
thought it worth your while to publish Luther at all, when 
you pronounce his sentiments to be both defective and 
erroneous ; I am not without an answer. With all its defects 
and errors, confessed and professed, I count this a truly 
estimable, magnificent and illustrious treatise. I publish 
it therefore, 1. Because I deem the subject all-important. 
2. Because I know no other work of value upon this all- 
important subject, which discusses it by the same sort of 
argumentation. 3. Because Luther's name is gold with 
some, and will, I hope, beget readers. 4. Because his 
right is so very right, and so very forcible. 5. Because his 
very errors and defects throw some rays of light upon 
their corrector and supplier, claim and obtain a hearing 
for him, and open a way to the more successful march 
and entry of truth. The wise Paley remarks, that, if he 
could but make his pupils sensible of the precise nature of 
the difficulty, he was half way towards conquering it. Let 
the reader see what sort of a God, and of a Christ, and of 
a salvation, Luther, when brought into day, sets before 
him ; and my expectation is, he will cry out for something 
better. 

I have said Luther's name is gold, and Luther, as I 
trust, will beget readers. Do not let it be supposed that 
I am therefore leaning upon Luther's arm for the support of 
truth. That be far from me. I disclaim, as he did, man's 
authority 5 what he protested against the Fathers, that I 



lxvi PREFACE. 

protest against him, and against every uninspired teacher. 
The fair and legitimate use of human authority is to 
awaken attention. What so eminent a man of God has 
said, is worth listening to, is worth weighing : but, could 
he now be called before us, he would say, c Weigh it in the 
balances of Scripture ; I desire to be received no farther 
than as I speak according to the oracles of God.' High 
respect is due to the opinions of a godly, God-raised, God- 
owned man — but he is man, fallible man at last ; and this 
man carried the mark of his fallibility with him to his 
grave, yea, has left it not in his writings only, but as a 
frontlet between the eyes of his blindly-devoted followers — 
who consubstantiate with him. iC To the law and to the 
testimony" — Well ! but neither will that appeal ensure 
the knowledge of the truth ; all do not know the truth 
who search the Scriptures. It is the Scripture as we be- 
lieve it to be opened to us by the Holy Ghost, which is 
the guide of our spirit ; and, whilst we are bound to yield a 
certain deference and obedience to the decisions of a law- 
fully constituted human tribunal — submitting to its inflic- 
tions even to the destruction, not of our worldly substance 
only, but of our flesh — our spirit owns no fetters but those 
which the Spirit imposes. 

I commend this work therefore, both as it respects 
Luther and as it respects my own part in it, to the candid, 
patient and anxious consideration of the reader \ earnestly 
requesting him to compare what is here written with the 
Scriptures, and carrying with him into that comparison a 
prayer which I here breathe out for him, c Lord, grant me 
to understand thy word; preserve me from concluding 
rashly against any thing that is written in this book, how- 
ever it may contradict my preconceived opinion ; and 
what is true in it enable thou me to welcome, digest, 
hold fast and enjoy !' 

I have already hinted that my desire has been to accom- 
plish a faithful translation. I believe the Lord has given 



PREFACE. lxvii 

me my desire. I need scarcely say I have found it a diffi- 
cult undertaking. Every scholar knows that the work of 
translation is one of great nicety. There is in every lan- 
guage some one word which more precisely than any other 
corresponds with the given one ; but it may often be the 
rumination of many hours tp find that word. This has 
been much of my toil. Luther's work, above most others, 
demanded it : he abounds in emphatic and distinctive 
words. His meaning also, as T have said, is not always un- 
ambiguous. He wrote, too, in a dead language : in which, 
though he doubtless tried his best on this occasion, and 
was complimented by having it supposed that the elegant 
pen of Melancthon had assisted him, he was but a clumsy 
and middle- aged composer. He has proverbs, moreover, 
without end -, some German, some classical. c The Ger- 
mans, you know (as a very learned friend, whom I con- 
sulted in one of my difficulties, obligingly writes to me), 
are great proverbialists, and many of their allusions are 
now lost. I have searched a great variety of authors, on a 
similar inquiry' (he was kind enough to do so now), c but 
in vain.' — / too, in a much more humble way, have made 
some search and a great deal of inquiry, but have learned 
nothing : witness, the Wolf and the Nightingale (p. 79), 
the beast which eats itself (p. 196), and the palm and 
the gourd (p. 373). My greatest perplexity has arisen 
from his in some instances mixing the old with the 
new, and luring me, like a will o' the wisp, to go after 
him, because I fancied I had a lantern to guide me, but 
soon found myself left in darkness. 

I fear my notes will incur the censure of two different 
sorts of reader ; each of whom will account many of them 
superfluous. I can only say none of them have been inserted 
without thought and design. To the learned I have been 
anxious to vindicate my accuracy ; to the unlearned I have 
been anxious to give such helps as might enable them to 
understand me. The learned must bear the burden of 

e2 



lxviii PREFACE. 

my laborious dulness, and the unlearned, of my Latin and 

Greek. 
With respect to my theology, I shall not wonder if I 

appear more positive and dogmatical to some, than even 
Luther himself. Let me be understood here. Whilst I 
make no claim to infallibility, but desire only that my 
assertions may be brought to the standard of Scripture, I 
desire to give my reader the full benefit of the firmness 
and deliberateness with which I have formed, entertained, 
and advanced my opinion, by omitting all such qualifying 
and hesitative restrictions, as c if I mistake not,' c I believe 
it will be found,' c I would venture to affirm &c.' Such 
subjects require a mind made up in the instructor ; and, 
if he would not invite others to doubt, his language must 
breathe the indubitative confidence which he feels. Be- 
sides, there is an energy, as well as an importance in 
truth, which inspires, even as it demands, boldness. 

I cannot take leave of my reader without desiring him 
to acknowledge his obligations to the late venerable Dean 
of Carlisle, Dr. Milner, to whose completion of his bro- 
ther's valuable history I am indebted, almost exclusively, 
for my account of Luther : a work of great research ; in 
which, by ransacking a vast body of original documents, 
and drawing light from sources which former historians had 
been content to leave unexplored, he has vindicated, 
illustrated and adorned this dauntless standard-bearer of 
the Reformation. 



POSTSCRIPT. 



In the following work, it has been my endeavour to assist 
the unlearned and those who may not have access to 
books, by giving some account of the various persons 
named in it by the author. I believe I have been tolerably 
consistent in doing so, but am aware that I have left two 
capital writers without note or comment. I would aim 
at uniformity therefore, by supplying this deficiency here : 
Plato is one of these, Augustine is the other. Not "only 
their celebrity, but the frequent reference made to them 
by Luther (especially to the latter), would render my 
omission inexcusable. 

1. The great Plato then (for such he truly was), seems 
to have been no favourite with Luther ; who was deeply 
conscious of the mischievous tendency of his writings as 
fostering a spirit of proud self- sufficiency, and as having 
cooperated with other sources of error to contaminate the 
truth, by exhibiting some semblances of its glory and 
beauty. In Part iv. Sect. lii. he speaks contemptuously 
of his ' Chaos' ; and in Part ii. Sect. v. of his f Ideas.' This 
Plato, however, appears to have been led into some vast 
conceptions of God (whence he derived them, is another 
question) — his nature, will, power and operations — into 
some exalted aspirations after communion with him — and 
into some elaborate attempts to purify and elevate the 
morals of his countrymen. Like others who speculated 
upon God, without God's guidance, he made matter eternal 
as well as God, though he gave God a supremacy over it, 
and ascribed to him both the modelling of the world, and 



lxx POSTSCRIPT. 

the commanding of it into being. Doubtless, it is a 
strange jumble which he makes — the world having 
a soul, nay a compound soul ; man with his two souls, 
and second causes placing a material body round a germ 
of immortality ! — but in his c chaos/ wild as it is, and that 
universal soul which was plunged into it and by its agi- 
tation brought out order, we see the vestige of corrupted 
truth ; in his ' ideas,' or ' first forms of things/ we see 
something yet more nearly approaching to reality — even 
the eternal God devising, ordaining and protruding every 
thing which exists ; and in his ideal world with God 
reigning in its highest height, as compared with the visi- 
ble system and its sun, we catch a faint glimpse of the 
invisible glory, and of that repose which shall be found in 
the uninterrupted contemplation of the reposing God. — I 
am not for bringing men back to Platonism,, but for letting 
them see, that even pagan Plato had a conception and a 
relish beyond many on whom the true light has shone ; and 
for leading them to understand, that revelation and tradition 
have extended much more widely than they are aware of; 
so that it ought not to appear strange, if even heathens are 
dealt with on a ground of knowledge which we may falsely 
have supposed that they had not the means of possessing. 
(See Part iii. Sect, xxviii. note v . Part v. Sect. xxvi. note c .) 
' The notion of a Trinity, more or less removed from the 
purity of the Christian faith, is found to have been a lead- 
ing principle in all the ancient schools of philosophy, and 
in the religions of almost all nations ; and traces of an 
early popular belief of it appear even in the abominable 
rites of idolatrous worship. If reason was insufficient for 
this great discovery, what could be the means of inform- 
ation but what the Platonists themselves assign, Qeoirapa- 
Boto9 eeo\oyia ; c a theology delivered from the Gods/ i. e. a 
revelation. This is the account which Platonists, who 
were no Christians, have given of the origin of their mas- 
ter's doctrine. But from what revelation could they derive 



POSTSCRIPT. lxxi 

their information, who lived before the Christian, and had 
no light from the Mosaic ? For whatever some of the 
early Fathers may have imagined, there is no evidence 
that Plato or Pythagoras were at all acquainted with the 
Mosaic writings : not to insist that the worship of a Trinity 
is traced to an earlier age than that of Plato or of Pytha- 
goras, or even of Moses. 'Their information could only 
be drawn from traditions founded upon earlier revelations ; 
from the scattered fragments of the ancient patriarchal 
creed ; that creed which was universal before the defec- 
tion of the first idolaters, which the corruptions of idola- 
try, gross and enormous as they were, could never totally 
obliterate.' — c What Socrates said of him, what Plato 
writ, and the rest of the heathen philosophers of several 
nations, is all no more than the twilight of revelation, after 
the sun of it was set in the race of Noah.' (See Horsley's 
Letters to Priestley, pp. 49, 50.) 

I am the rather surprised that Luther should fleer so 
roughly at Plato, because his beloved Augustine acknow- 
ledged obligations to him. ' And first, as thou wouldest 
shew me how thou resistest the proud, and givest grace 
to the humble ; and how great thy mercy is shewn to 
be in the way of humility; thou procuredst for me, by 
means of a person highly inflated with philosophical pride, 
some of the books of Plato translated into Latin, in which 
I read passages concerning the divine word similar to those 
in the first chapter of St John's Gospel ; in which his 
eternal divinity was exhibited, but not his incarnation, his 
atonement, his humiliation, and glorification of his human 
nature. For thou hast hid these things from the wise and 
prudent, and revealed them unto babes ; that men might 
come to thee weary and heavy laden, and that thou 

mightest refresh them Thus did I begin to form better 

views of the divine nature, even from Plato's writings, as 
thy people of old spoiled the Egyptians of their gold, 
because, whatever good there is in any thing, is all thy 



lxxii POSTSCRIPT. 

own ; and at the same time I was enabled to escape the 
evil which was in those books, and not to attend to the 
idols of Egypt.' — His historian remarks upon this, e there is 
something divinely spiritual in the manner of his deliver- 
ance. That the Platonic books also should give the first 
occasion is very remarkable ; though I apprehend the Latin 
translation, which he saw, had improved on Plato, by the 
mixture of something scriptural, according to the manner 
of the Ammonian philosophers.'* — Thus Plato, it seems, 
could hold the candle to an Augustine, whilst he was him- 
self far from the light : but there was truth, we see, and 
discriminating truth, mixed and blended with his false- 
hood. 

2. Augustine's errors were those of Luther, increased 

* Milner does not appear to have understood what the investigating 
Horsley has made plain, that neither was Plato an inventor, neither were 
the Ammonians scriptural improvers of human inventions, hut hoth 
Plato and those from whom he copied retailers, in fact, of mutilated 
revelations. ' These notions were by no means peculiar to the Platonic 
school : the Platonists pretended to he no more than the expositors of a 
more ancient doctrine j which is traced from Plato to Parmenides ; 
from Parmenides to his masters of the Pythagorean sect ; from the 
Pythagoreans to Orpheus, the earliest of the Grecian mystagogues ; 
from Orpheus to the secret lore of the Egyptian priests ; in which the 
foundations of the Orphic theology were laid. Similar notions of a 
triple principle prevailed in the Persian and Chaldean theology ; and 
vestiges even of the worship of a Trinity were discernible in the 
Homan superstition in a very late age ; this worship the Romans had 
received from their Trojan ancestors. For the Trojans brought it with 
them into Italy from Phrygia. In Phrygia it was introduced by Dar- 
danus as early as in the ninth century after Noah's flood. Dardanus 
carried it with him from Samothrace, where the personages that were 
the objects of it were worshipped under the heathen name of the 
Cabirim. . . . e The Great or Mighty ones :' for that is the import of the 
Hebrew name. And of the like import is their Latin appellation, 

Penates Thus the joint worship of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, 

the triad of the Roman capital, is traced to that of the three mighty 
ones in Samothrace ; which was established in that island, at what 
precise time it is impossible to determine, but earlier, if Eusebius may 
be credited, than the days of Abraham.' — Horsley's Letters to Priestley, 
pp. 47—49. 



POSTSCRIPT. lxxiii 

by an ignorance of the doctrine of justification : he had 
the elements of this doctrine, it is said, but he never put 
them together. His case was a very remarkable one. 
After a profligate youth, in which he had run to great 
excess of riot ; after having infected himself with the 
poison of the Manichees (see Part iv. Sect. ix. note v . 
Sect. xi. note h ); after having sold himself into the ser- 
vice of vain-glory, lasciviousnes, pride and atheism, he 
was made to bow down before the true God, and to kiss 
his Son. God had hereby signally and specially prepared 
him to be the champion of grace in opposition to Pela- 
gianism ; which started up in his days a many- varied 
monster. By degrees he was led to use his own expe- 
rience as an interpreter of Scripture 3 and though, as his 
historian tells us, St. Paul's doctrine of predestination was 
a doctrine that, with him, followed experimental religion, 
as a shadow follows the substance — it was not embraced 
for its own sake — yet follow him it did ; and he was per- 
suaded of it, and embraced it, and maintained it in much, 
though not all of its vigour, against its antagonists. In 
fact, how could he defend the doctrine of grace, as his 
historian terms it (meaning thereby not grace in its ful- 
ness, but only the gift of the Spirit), without it ? If his 
historian be correct, we have in him a confirmation of the 
salutary effect of controversy ; it was Pelagianism which 
made Augustine understand what he did of predestination : 
we have it also exemplified, that, not to know the root and 
outline of truth is not to know any branch or feature of 
it thoroughly. His historian would commend him for 
his moderation, which is here another name for his igno- 
rance ; but the reality is, not thoroughly understanding 
predestination, which is the root " of the mystery of God, 
and of the Father, and of Christ," he did not understand 
justification, he did not understand redemption, he did not 
understand man's state, he did not understand that grace 
of which he was the strenuous and honoured defender. 



lxxiv POSTSCRIPT. 

Grace of the Spirit (properly so called) is but a part of the 
grace of God the Father, which was given us in Christ 
Jesus before the world began ; and even of that part, of 
which he spake so sweetly and so feelingly, he did not 
discern the spring, channel and mouth. — What is to be 
said of this — how it should have been so arranged to this 
beloved child, that he should have been left, and kept, 
and used in his ignorance, is one question ; the fact that 
he was so left is another. The truth is, he and his 
venerable yoke-fellow Luther are clear confirmers of the 
position I have maintained in a preceding note (see p. lxiii.) 
that the light of divine truth is progressive ; Augustine 
knew what Cyprian did not, and Luther knew what 
Augustine did not — and why is the climax to end with 
Luther, Calvin and Cranmer ? Grace however, though 
not in all its fulness, yet in all its freeness, was Augus- 
tine's theme and Augustine's glory. With such a his- 
tory going before, how could he teach any thing else ? 
' The distinguishing glory of the Gospel is to teach 
humility, and to give God his due honour ; and Augustine 
was singularly prepared for this by a course of internal 
experience. He had felt human insufficiency completely, 
and knew that in himself dwelt no good thing. Hence he 
was admirably qualified to describe the total depravity and 
apostasy of human nature, and he described what he knew 

to be true Humility is his theme. Augustine taught 

men what it is to be humble before God. This he does 
every where with godly simplicity, with inexpressible 
seriousness. And in doing this, no writer, uninspired, 
ever exceeded, I am apt to think ever equalled him in any 
age Few writers have been equal to him in de- 
scribing the internal conflict of flesh and spirit He 

describes this in a manner unknown to any but those who 
have deeply felt it : and the Pelagian pretensions to per- 
fection oblige him to say more than otherwise would be 
needful to prove, that the most humble and the most holy 



POSTSCRIPT. lxxv 

have, through life, to combat with in- dwelling sin. . . . Two 
more practical subjects he delights to handle, charity and 
heavenly-mindedness. In both he excels wonderfully... 
A reference of all things to a future life, and the depth 
of humble love appear in all his writings ; as in truth, 
from the moment of his conversion, they influenced all his 
practice/ With all his darkness, therefore, abiding thick 
upon him (we are not to call darkness light because God 
commanded the light to shine out of it), He who formeth 
the light and createth darkness made him light to His 
church. Q For a thousand years and upwards the light of 
divine grace, which shone here and there in individuals, 
during the dreary night of superstition, was nourished by 
his writings ; which, next to the sacred Scriptures, were 
the guides of men who feared God : nor have we, in all 
history, an instance of so extensive utility derived to the 
church from the writings of men.' Beatus Augustinus is 
the title by which he is commonly quoted ; and a word 
from him, for confirmation, was usually made an end of 
all strife by Luther, Calvin, and all the Oracles of the 
Reformation, when eleven hundred years had rolled over 
his ashes. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



INTRODUCTION . . , 

PART I. — Erasmus's Preface reviewed . 

II. — Erasmus's Proem reviewed 

III. — Texts for Freewill disproved 

IV. — Texts against Freewill main- 
tained » 

-V. — Freewill proved to be a Lie . 

CONCLUSION 



Page 

2—9 

10-77 

78—128 

129—235 

236—380 
381—467 
468—470 



PART I 



SECT. 

i. Assertions defended. 

ii. Erasmus a sceptic. 

in. Christian truth not 
hidden. 

IV. Scripture falsely ac- 
cused of obscurity, 
v. Freewill a necessary 
subject. 

vi. Erasmus's Christianity. 

vn. The same exposed by 

similes. 
Yin. Connection of the sub- 
ject with true piety. 

IX. Erasmus has omitted 
God's prescience. 



SECT. 

x. God's prescience flows 
from Erasmus's con- 
cession, 
xi. Objection to term ' Ne- 
cessity.' Necessity of 
a consequence, &c. 

xti. Prevalence of the opi- 
nion of c Necessity.' 

xiii. Temerity of Erasmus's 
moderation. 

xiv . All Scrip lure truth may 

be published safely. 
xv. That c some truths 
ought not to be pub- 
lished' considered. 



lxxviii 



CONTENTS. 



SECT. 

xvi. Erasmus's three ex- 
amples considered. 

xvii. Erasmus neither un- 
derstands nor feels 
the question. 
xviii. Peace of the world 
disturbed. 

xix. Free confession. The 
Pope and God at 
war. The people 
abuse. 
xx. Respect of persons, 
time and place per- 
nicious. 

xxi. The Fathers have no 
authority but from 
the word. 



SECT. 

xxn. f All things by ne- 
cessity;' ' God all 
in all/ 

xxiii. Two reasons why 
certain paradoxes 
should be preached. 

xxiv. That ' all human 
works are neces- 
sary/ explained and 
defended. 

xxv. Erasmus self-con- 
victed : madness of 
claiming Freewill. 

xxvi. Erasmus reduced to 
a dilemma. 



PART II. 



I. Canonical Scriptures 
to be the standard. 
ii. Excellences of the 
Fathers not of Free- 
will. 

in. Luther demands ef- 
fects of Freewill in 
three particulars. 

iv. The Saints practically 
disclaim Freewill. 

v. Luther demands a de- 
finition of Freewill. 

vi. Erasmus's advice 
turned against him- 
self. 
vii. Injustice done to the 

Fathers. 
viii. * That God should 
have disguised the 
error of his church/ 
considered. 

ix. The church hidden. 

x. Judgment of faith 
distinct from judg- 
ment of charity. 



xi. Erasmus's perplexity. 
xii. Two tribunals for the 

spirits of men. 
xiii. Clearness of Scrip- 
ture proved, 
xiv. The same. 
xv. Concludes against 

Freewill. 
xvi. c All your adversaries 
shall not be able to 
resist,' considered, 
xvn. We have this pro- 
mised victory. 
xviii. Why great geniuses 
have been blind 
about Freewill. 
xix. That Erasmus has 
admitted Scripture 
to be clear. 
xx. Erasmus reduced to 

a dilemma. 
xxi. Luther claims vic- 
tory before the 
battle . 





CONTENTS. 




PART III. 


SECT. 


SECT 


I. 


Erasmus's definition 
of Freewill exa- 
mined. 


XVIII 


II. 


Definition continued. 


XIX. 


III. 


Definition continued. 




IV. 


Inferences from Eras- 
mus's definition. 


XX 


V. 


Erasmus's definition 
compared with that 


XXI 




of the Sophists. 


XXII 



lxxix 



vi. Eccl us . xv. 15—18. 

considered, 
vn. Opinions on Freewill 
stated. 

viii. Erasmus inconsistent 
with his definition. 
ix. The approvable opi- 
nion considered. 
x. The approvable opi- 
nion further consi- 
dered. 
xi. Freewill not a c ne- 
gative intermediate 
power of the will.' 

xii. The approvable opi- 
nion compared with 
the other tw r o, 

xin. Eccl us . xv. 14 — 18. 
resumed and ex- 
pounded. 

xiv. Eccl us . at least does 
not decide for Free- 
will, 
xv. What meant by c If 
thou wilt, &c.' 

xvi. Use of such forms of 
address. 

xvii. Diatribe insincere in 

her inference 

proves too much — 
confirms Pelagian- 
ism. 



XXIII. 

xxiv. 
xxv. 

XXVI. 

XXVII. 

XXVIII. 

XXIX. 

XXX. 
XXXI. 



Conclude that Ec- 
cl us . proves nothing 
for Freewill. 
Genesis iv. 7» con ~ 
sidered. 

Dent. xxx. 19. con- 
sidered. 

Passages from Deut. 
xxx. &c. considered. 
His Scriptures prove 
nothing; his addi- 
tions too much. 
Simile of the hand 
tied. Uses of the 
law. 

Isaiah i. 19. xxx. 
21.xlv. 20. lii. 1, 2. 
and some other pas- 
sages considered. 
Mai. iii. 7« more 
particularly consi- 
dered. 

Ezek. xviii.23. con- 
sidered. 

The true meaning 
of Ezek. xviii. 23. 
stated. 

Ezek. xviii. 23. ne- 
gatives Freewill, in- 
stead of proving it. 
How far God may 
be said to bewail 
the death he pro- 
duces. 

Exhortations, pro- 
mises, &c. of Scrip- 
ture useless. 
Deut. xxx. 11 — 14. 
considered. 
Sum of the Old Tes- 
tament witnesses for 
Freewill. 



lxxx 



CONTENTS, 



SECT. 

xxxn. New Testament 
witnesses for Free- 
will, beginning with 
Matthew xxiii. 37— 
39. considered. 

xxxiii. The reality of 
God's secret will 
maintained. 

xxxi v. Matthew xix. YJ . 
and other like pas- 
sages, considered. 
xxxv. Objection, ' that 
precepts are given, 
and merit is ascribed 
to Freewill/ 

xxxvi. New Testament 
precepts are ad- 
dressed to the con- 
verted, not to those 
in Freewill. 
Xxxvn . Merit and reward 
may consist with 
necessity. 



SECT. 

xxx via. Why there are 
promises and threat- 
enings in Scripture. 
xxxix. Reason is an- 
sweredj e Such is 
the will of God/ 
xl. Apology for not 
going further. Ab- 
surd cavil from 
Matt. vii. 16. 
xli. Luke xxiii. 34. is 
against not for 
Freewill. 
xlii. John i. 12. is all 

for grace. 
xlii i. Objections from 
Paul summarily de- 
spatched. 
xli v. Wickliffe's confes- 
sion confessed. 



PART IV. 



i. Erasmus has but two 
texts to kill. 

ii. Kills by resolving 
them into tropes : 
which he defends 
by Luther's ex- 
ample. 

in. Trope and conse- 
quence when only 
to be admitted. 

IV. Luther denies having 
used trope in his 
interpretation of — 
" Stretch out/' and 
" Make you/' 
v. Diatribe must prove 
by Scripture or mi- 
racle, that the very 
passage in question 
is tropical. 



vi. Erasmus's trope 
makes nonsense of 
Moses, and leaves 
the knot tied. 

vn. Necessity stiil re- 
mains, and you do 
not clear God. 

viii. Diatribe's similes of 
sun and rain re- 
jected, 
ix. Erasmus's two causes 
for tropicizing con- 
sidered. 
x. That God made all 
things very good, 
not a sufficient rea- 
son, 
xi. How God works evil 
in us, considered. 

xn. How God hardens. 



CONTENTS. 



lxxxi 



SECT. 

xiii. Mistakes prohi- 
bited, 
xiv. Pharaoh's case 

considered, 
xv. Impertinent ques- 
tions may still be 
asked, 
xvi. The trope com- 
pared with the text. 

xvn. Moses's object is 
to strengthen Is- 
rael. 

xviii. Paul's reference in 
Rom. ix. Diatribe 
obliged to yield. 
xix. Diatribe's conces- 
sions and retrac- 
tions exposed. 
xx. Where true rever- 
ence for Scripture 
lies. 
xxi. What carnal rea- 
son hates. 

xxii. Paul's argument 
resumed. Diatribe 
tries to escape but 
cannot. 

xxiii. ( Necessity of a 
consequent/ ex- 
posed. 

xxiv. The other admit- 
ted text defended. 

xxv. Paul defended in 
his use of Genesis 
xxv. 21—23. 

xxvi. The same. 
xxvu. Diatribe's eva- 
sions of Malachi i. 
2, 3. considered, 
xxvin. The same. 

xxix. The same. 

xxx. Simile of the pot- 
ter. 

xxxi. The cavil from 
2 Tim. ii. repelled. 



SECT. 

xxxn. Reason's cavil 

from this simile. 
xxxiii. The same. 
xxxiv. That Scripture 
must be understood 
with qualifications. 
xxxv. That Luther has 
always maintained 
the consistency of 
Scripture. 
xxxvi. After all Paul 

stands, 
xxxvu. Gen. vi. 3. main- 
tained. 
xxxviii. Gen. viii. 21. and 
vi. 5. maintained. 
xxxix. Isaiah xl. 2. main- 
tained. 
xl. Episode upon 
God's help. — Cor- 
nelius rescued. 
xli. Isaiah xl. 6, 7« 

maintained. 
xlii. The true interpret- 
ation of the same. 
xli ii. Heathen virtue is 

God's abhorrence. 
xliv. Consequences of 
the assumption that 
a part of man is not 
< flesh.' 
xlv. Luther falsely 
charged. Autho- 
rity of the ancients, 
&c. 
xlvi. Jeremiah x. 23, 

24. defended. 
xlvii. Proverbs xvi. 1. 

defended. 
xlviii. Much in Proverbs 
for Freewill. 
xlix. John xv. 5. main- 
tained. 
l. Inconsistency 
charged. 



Ixxxii 



CONTENTS. 



SECT. 

li. Luther proves his 

negative. 
LH. 1 Cor.iii. J. 1 Cor. 
xiii. 2. John iii. 27 . 
Lin. Diatribe's similes 
naught, and against 
her. — What she 
ought to have spok- 
en to. 



SECT. 

liv. Diatribe's incon- 
sistency and auda- 
city — takes up one 
subject and pursues 
another — argues by 
inversion. 
lv. Solemn conclu- 
sion. 



PART V. 



i. How Luther pro- 
poses to conduct 
the fight. 

ii. Romans i. 18. pro- 
nounces sentence 
upon Freewill. 

in. A published Gos- 
pel proves want of 
knowledge as well 
as power. 

iv. Freewill neither 
conceives the truth 
nor can endure it. 

v. Paul expressly 

names the chiefest 
of the Greeks j and 
afterwards con- 
demns the Jews in- 
discriminately. 

vi. Paul's epilogue es- 
tablishes his mean- 
ing- 

vii. Paul justified in his 

quotations. 
vin. David's condemna- 
tion includes power 
as well as act. 

ix. Paul's big words in 
Romans iii. 19, 20. 
insisted upon. 



x. Evasion, that it is 
ceremonial law of 
which Paul speaks, 
xi. Paul's meaning is, 
c works of the law 
done in the flesh 
condemn.' 

xn. All the law does is 
to shew sin. 

xm. Confirmed by Gal. 
iii. 19. and Rom. v. 
20. 

xiv. Rom. iii. 21 — 25. 
contains five thun- 
derbolts against 
Freewill. 

xv. The same. 

xvi. The same. 
xvn. Sophists worse than 

the Pelagians. 
xvi ii. Fathers overlooked 
Paul. 

xix. Paul's citation of the 
example of Abra- 
ham searched and 
applied. 
xx. Luther omits much 
which he might in- 
sist upon. 





CONTENTS. 


lxxxiii 


SECT. 




SECT. 




XXI. 


Luther's own view 




John iii. 27. John 




of Paul. 




iii. 31. John viii. 23. 


XXII. 


Paul's crown. 


xxix. 


John vi. 44. 


XXIII. 


Grace exemplified 


XXX. 


John xvi. 9. 




in Jews rejected— 7 


xxxi. 


Omits c flesh and 




Gentiles called. 




spirit/ 


XXIV. 


John a devourer. 


xxxii. 


Difficulty stated,and 


XXV. 


John Baptist's tes- 




exposed. 




timony. 


xxxiii. 


The same reproved, 


XXVI. 


Nicodemus's case. 




and palliated by ex 


XXVII. 


John xiv. 6. fore- 




ample. 




stalled. Way,Truth, 


xxxiv. 


Sum of the argu- 




&c. are exclusive. 


i 


ment. 



XXVIII, 



111. 



ERRATA. 



PAGE 

22, note v ,for Chap. ii. read Part ii. 

60, note x ,for Chap. i. Sect. iii. note '. read Part i. Sect iii. note k . 

71, note c ,for Sect. ix. note d . read Sect. ix. note e . 
199, side note, for Some read Sum. 
225, note % for y read i>\ 



MARTIN LUTHER, 

ON THE 

BONDAGE OF THE WILL ; 

TO THE VENERABLE MISTER ERASMUS, OF ROTTERDAM. 

1525. 



B 



MARTIN LUTHER, 

etc. 



To the venerable Mr. Erasmus of Rotterdam 
Martin Luther sends grace and peace in Christ. 

INTRODUCTION. 

ReasoJis for the Work, 

In replying so tardily to your Diatribe 3 on 
Freewill, my venerable Erasmus, I have done 
violence both to the general expectation and to 
my own custom. Till this instance, I have seemed 
willing not only to lay hold on such opportunities 
of writing when they occurred to me, but even to go 
in search of them without provocation. Some per- 
haps will be ready to wonder at this new and un- 
usual patience, as it may be, or fear of Luther's • 
who has not been roused from his silence even 
by so many speeches and letters which have been 
bandied to and fro amongst his adversaries, 
congratulating Erasmus upon his victory, and 
chaunting an lo Psean. ' So then, this Macca- 

a Diatribe.'] One of the names by which Erasmus chose to 
distinguish his performance on Freewill. He borrows it from 
the debates of the ancient philosophers ; and would be under- 
stood to announce a canvassing of the question rather than 
a judicial determination upon it. The original Greek term 
denotes, 1. The place trodden by the feet whilst they were 
engaged in the debate. 2. The time spent in such debate. 
3. The debate itself. Erasmus's Diatribe, therefore, is ' a 
disquisition, or disputation/ on Freewill. Luther often per- 
sonifies it. 

b2 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

baeus and most inflexible Assertor has at length 
found an antagonist worthy of him, whom he does 
not dare to open his mouth against !' 

I am so far from blaming these men, however, 
that I am quite ready to yield a palm to you 
myself, such as I never yet did to any man ; ad- 
mitting, that you not only very far excel me in 
eloquence and genius (a palm which we all de- 
servedly yield to you — how much more such a 
man as I; a barbarian who have always dwelt 
amidst barbarism), but that you have checked 
both my spirit and my inclination to answer you, 
and have made me languid before the battle. 
This you have done twice over: first, by your art 
in pleading this cause with such a wonderful com- 
mand of temper, from first to last, that you have 
made it impossible for me to be angry with you; 
and secondly, by contriving, through fortune, ac- 
cident or fate, to say nothing on this great sub- 
ject which has not been said before. In fact, you 
say so much less for Freewill, and yet ascribe so 
much more to it, than the Sophists 6 have done 
before you (of which I shall speak more at large 
hereafter), that it seemed quite superfluous to an- 
swer those arguments of yours which I have so 
often confuted myself, and which have been trod- 
den under foot, and crushed to atoms, by Philip 
Melancthon's invincible ' Common Places.' c In 

b The schoolmen, with Peter Lombard at their head, who 
arose about the middle of the twelfth century j idolizers of 
Aristotle j their theology abounding with metaphysical subtil- 
ties, and their disputations greatly resembling those of the 
Greek sophists. 

c Luther refers to the former editions of Melancthon's 
* Common Places," which contained some passages not found 
in the later ones 3 this amongst others. ' The divine pre- 
destination takes away liberty* from man : for all things happen 
according to divine predestination ; as well the external ac- 
tions as the internal thoughts of all creatures. . . . The judgment 
of the flesh abhors this sentiment, but the judgment of the 

* Not ' choice/ but s unbiassed choice j" ' freeness and contingency of 
choice.'— Ed. 



INTRODUCTION. 

my judgment, that work of his deserves not only to 
be immortalized, but even canonized. So mean and 
worthless did yours appear, when compared with it, 
that I exceedingly pitied you, who were polluting 
your most elegant and ingenious diction with such 
filth of argument, and was quite angry with your 
most unworthy matter, for being conveyed in so 
richly ornamented a style of eloquence. It is just 
as if the sweepings of the house or of the stable 
were borne about on men's shoulders in vases of 
gold and silver ! You seem to have been sensi- 
ble of this yourself, from the difficulty with which 
you was persuaded to undertake the office of 
writing, on this occasion ; your conscience, no 
doubt, admonishing you, that with whatever pow- 
ers of eloquence you might attempt the subject, 
it would be impossible so to gloss it over that I 
should not discover the excrementitious nature of 
your matter through all the tricksy ornaments of 
phrase with which you might cover it ; that / 
should not discover it, I say; who, though rude 
in speech, am, by the grace of God, not rude in 
knowledge. For I do not hesitate, with Paul, 
thus to claim the gift of knowledge for myself, 



spirit embraces it. For you will not learn the fear of God,, or 
confidence in Him, from any source more surely than when 
you shall have imbued your mind with this sentiment concern- 
ing predestination.' — It is to passages such as these that Luther 
doubtless refers in the testimony here given to Melancthon's 
work ; and from the withdrawing of which in subsequent edi- 
tions, it has been inferred that Melancthon afterwards changed 
his sentiments upon these subjects. The late Dean of Car- 
lisle has investigated this supposition with his usual accuracy 
and diligence 5 and concludes that he probably did alter his 
earlier sentiments to some extent in later life. Truth, how- 
ever does not stand in man or by man. Too much has no 
doubt been made of supposed changes in the opinions of 
many learned and pious divines. But after all, what do these 
prove ? We have the same sources of knowledge as they, 
and must draw our light from the clear spring, not from the 
polluted and uncertain stream. — See Milner's Eccles, Hist, 
vol, iv. p. 920—936, first edition. 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

and with equal confidence to withhold it from you; 
whilst I claim eloquence and genius for you, and 
willingly, as I ought to do, withhold them from 
myself. 

So that I have been led to reason thus with 
myself. If there be those who have neither drunk 
deeper into our writings, nor yet more firmly 
maintain them, (fortified as they are by such an 
accumulation of Scripture proofs) than to be 
shaken by those trifling or good for nothing argu- 
ments of Erasmus, though dressed out, I admit, 
in the most engaging apparel ; such persons are 
not worth being cured by an answer from me: for 
nothing could be said or written which would be 
sufficient for such men, though many thousands of 
books should be repeated even a thousand times 
over. You might just as well plough the sea- 
shore and cast your seed into the sand, or fill a cask, 
that is full of holes, with water. We have mi- 
nistered abundantly to those who have drunk of 
the Spirit as their teacher through the instru- 
mentality of our books, and they perfectly despise 
your performances; and as for those who read 
without the Spirit, it is no wonder if they be 
driven like the seed with every wind. To such 
persons God would not say enough, if he were 
to convert all his creatures into tongues. So that 
I should almost have determined to leave these 
persons, stumbled as they were by your publication, 
with the crowd which glories in you and decrees 
you a triumph. 

You see then, that it is neither the multitude 
of my engagements, nor the difficulty of the under- 
taking, nor the vastness of your eloquence, nor 
any fear of you, but mere disgust, indignation, 
and contempt ; or, to say the truth, my deliberate 
judgment respecting your Diatribe, which has 
restrained the impulse of my mind to answer you: 
not to mention what has also its place here, that 
ever like yourself you with the greatest pertina- 



INTRODUCTION, 7 

city take care to be always evasive and ambi- 
guous/ More cautious than Ulysses, you (latter 
yourself that you contrive to sail between Scylla 
and Chary bdis ; whilst you would be understood 
to have asserted nothing, yet again assume the 
air of an asserter. With men of this sort how is 
it possible to confer and to compare; 6 unless one 
should possess the art of catching Proteus ? Here- 
after I will shew you with Christ's help what I can 
do in this way, and what you have gained by put- 
ting me to it. 

Still it is not without reason that I answer you 
now. The faithful brethren in Christ impel me 
by suggesting the general expectation which is 
entertained of a reply from my pen ; inasmuch as 
the authority of Erasmus is not to be despised, 
and the true christian doctrine is brought into 
jeopardy in the hearts of many. At length too it 
has occurred to me that there has been a great 
want of piety in my silence ; and that I have been 
beguiled by the ' wisdom 5 or c wickedness 5 of my 
flesh into a forgetfulness of my office, which makes 
me debtor to the wise and to the unwise, especially 
when I am called to the discharge of it by the en- 
treaties of so many of the brethren. For, although 
our business f be not content with an external 

d Labricus etjlexiloquus.'] Lub. ' one that slips out of your 
hands, so that you cannot grapple with him.' Flex. e one whose 
words will bend many ways 5 as being of doubtful or pliable 
meaning.' 

e Conferri aut componi^] What Erasmus professed to do, and 
thereupon gave the name of ' Collatio' to his Treatise : ' a sort 
of c conference' and f comparison' of sentiment 3 each dis- 
putant bringing his opinion and arguments, and placing them 
front to front with his opponent's.' — Proteus was a sort of 
Demigod supposed to have the power of changing himself into 
many forms. 

f Res nostra.'] e The ministering of Christ' is the business 
here spoken of, by a phrase correspondent with ( res bellica,' 
( resnavalis,' ' res judiciaria,' &c. &c. as being the trade, occu- 
pation, and alone concern of Christ's ministers 5 in whose name 
he here speaks. 



8 B0N6AGE OF THE WILL. 

teacher, but besides him who planteth and water- 
eth without, desires the Spirit of God also (that 
He may give the increase, and being Himself life 
may teach the doctrine of life within the soul — a 
thought which imposed upon me); still, whereas 
this Spirit is free, and breathes, not where we would, 
but where He himself wills ; I ought to have ob- 
served that rule of PauPs, "Be instant in season, 
out of season ;" for we know not at what hour 
the Lord shall come. What if some have not yet 
experienced the teaching of the Spirit through my 
writings, and have been dashed to the ground by 
your Diatribe ! It may be their hour was not yet 
come. 

And who knows Jbut God may deign to visit 
even you, my excellent Erasmus, by so wretched 
and frail a little vessel of His, as myself? Who 
knows but I may come to you in happy hour (I 
wish it from my heart of the Father of Mercies 
through Christ our Lord) by means of this trea- 
tise, and may gain a most dear brother? For, 
although you both think ill and write ill on the 
subject of Freewill, I owe you vast obligations, 
for having greatly confirmed me in my sentiments, 
by giving me to see the cause of Freewill pleaded 
by such and so great a genius, with all his might, 
and yet after all so little effected, that it stands 
worse than it did before. — An evident proof this, 
that Freewill is a downright lie ; since, like the 
woman in the Gospel, the more it is healed of 
the doctors the worse it fares. I shall give un- 
bounded thanks to you, if the event be, that you 
are made to know the truth through me, even as I 
have become more fixed in it through you, How- 
beit, each of these results is the gift of the Spirit, 
not the achievement of our own good offices. 2 

s Officii nostri.'] Off. f What a man has to do j* ' his business/ 
implying relation ; as f munus et officium oculorum/ e the office 
or function of the eye/ Hence, ' good office, obligation, kind- 
ness conferred.' 



INTRODUCTION. 9 

We must therefore pray God to open my mouth 
and your heart and the hearts of all men, and to 
be himself present as a Teacher in the midst of 
us, speaking and hearing severally within our 
souls. Once more; let me beg of you, my Eras- 
mus, to bear with my r.udeness of speech, even 
as I bear with your ignorance on these subjects. 
God gives not all his gifts to one man ; nor have 
we all power to do all things ; or, as Paul says, 
" There are distributions of gifts, but the same 
Spirit." It remains, therefore, that the gifts labour 
mutually for each other, and that one man bear 
the burden of another's penury by the gift which 
he has himself received; thus shall we fulfil the 
law of Christ. (Galat. vi. 2.) 



10 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART I. 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 



SECTION I. 
Assertions defended. 



I would begin with passing rapidly through 
some chapters of your Preface, by which you 
sink our cause and set offyour own. a And first, hav- 
ing already in other publications found fault with me 
for being so positive and inflexible in assertion, you 
in this declare yourself to be so little pleased with 
assertions that you would be ready to go over 
and side b with the Sceptics on any subject in 
which the inviolable authority of the divine Scrip- 
tures, and the decrees of the Church (to which you 
on all occasions willingly submit your own judg- 
ment, whether you understand what she prescribes, 
or not) would allow you to do so. This is the 
temper you like. 

I give you credit, as I ought, for saying this 
with a benevolent mind, which loves peace ; but 
if another man were to say so, I should perhaps 
inveigh against him, as my manner is. I ought 
not however to suffer even you, though writing 
with the best intention, to indulge so erroneous 

a Gravas, ornasJ] The figure is mixed : gr. ' clog, load, weigh 
down.' Orn. ' beautify with apparel.' 

b Pedibus discessurus.] A Roman phrase taken from their me- 
thod of voting in the senate, when they dissented from the 
decree as proposed : they walked over to the opposite side of 
the house. 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. H 

an opinion. For it is not the property of a sect. i. 

christian mind to be displeased with assertions; ' 

nay, a man must absolutely be pleased with asser- ^ s f sei "f ° d ns 
tions, or he never will be a Christian. Now, 
(that we may not mock each other with vague 
words c ) I call * adhering with constancy, affirming, 
confessing, maintaining, and invincibly per- 
severing/ assertion ; nor do I believe that the 
word S assertion ' means any thing else, either as 
used by the Latins, or in our age. Again ; I con- 
fine ' assertion ' to those things which have been 
delivered by God to us in the sacred writings. 
We do not want Erasmus, or any other Master, 
to teach us that in doubtful matters, or in matters 
unprofitable and unnecessary, assertions are not 
only foolish but even impious ; those very strifes 
and contentions, which Paul more than once con- 
demns. Nor do you speak of these, I suppose, 
in this place ; unless, either adopting the manner 
of a ridiculous Orator, you have chosen to pre- 
sume one subject of debate and discuss another, 
like him who harangued the Rhombus; or, with 
the madness of an impious Writer, are contend- 
ing that the article of Freewill is dubious or 
unnecessary. d 

c Ne verbis ludamur.'] { That we may not be mocked by 
words { e made the sport of words.' 

d Velut ilk ad Rhombum.'] If you be indeed speaking of such 
assertions here, you are either a ridiculous orator, or a mad 
writer : a ridiculous orator, if it be not true genuine Freewill 
which you are discussing ; a mad writer, if it be. Oratory was 
out of place, on such a subject, however sincere and dis- 
interested the speaker might be ; but orators were for the 
most part a venal and frivolous tribe, and some exercised their 
art unskilfully, whilst others were hired but to amuse and make 
sport. It is not without meaning, therefore, that Luther puts 
the orator and the writer into comparison ; and if Erasmus is 
to fill the weightier place of the writer, it is that of one 
phrensied and blasphemous. — I am indebted to the kindness of 
a learned friend for the reference, c velut ille ad Rhombum,' 
which had perplexed me. I can have no doubt that it is to 
the fourth Satire of Juvenal,, where Domitian is represented as 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL; 

We Christians disclaim all intercourse with the 
Sceptics and Academics, but admit into our family 
asserters twofold more obstinate, than even the 
Stoics themselves. How often does the Apostle 

having called a council of his senators to deliberate what 
should be done with an immense ' Rhombus,' or Turbot ; with 
which a fisherman out of fear had presented him. Amongst 
other counsellors was a blind man, of very infamous character, 
as an informer, but high in the favour of the Emperor, named 
Catullus ; ' cum mortifero Catuilo.' 

" Grande et conspicuum nostro quoque tempore monstrum 
" Ccecus adulator." 

This man extolled the Rhombus exceedingly, pointing to its 
various beauties with his hand, as if he really saw them. Rut 
unfortunately, whilst he pointed to the fish as lying on his left 
hand, it lay all the while on his right. 

" Nemo magis Rhombum stupuit : nam plurima dixit 
" In laevum conversus : at illi dextra jacebat 
" Bellua : 

This was not the only occasion on which he had given scope 
to his imagination, and praised as though he had eyes : 

"sic pugnas Cilicis laudabat et ictus, 

" Et pegma, et pueros inde ad velaria raptos." — Juv. iv. 113 — 121. 

The force of the comparison, therefore, lies in Erasmus 
being supposed to discuss the phantom of his own imagination, 
instead of the real Rhombus. This phantom he might call 
dubious or unnecessary, without being himself impious j it was 
the coinage of his own brain : but if he called the real 
Rhombus, ' the Church's confession of Freewill,' dubious or 
useless, he wrote gravely, but he wrote sacrilegiously. He has 
only the alternative, therefore, of being a fool or a madman, 
if he place Luther's assertion on Freewill amongst the barren 
and vain. — The word ' praesumere ' is used in rather a peculiar,' 
but not unauthorized, sense ; correspondent with our English 
word, ' presume,' and with its own etymology j c preconceive,' 
'anticipate,' ( conjecture,' imagine,' — ' opinari,' ' credere,' 
( conjicere,' c imaginari.' — I should rather have preferred un- 
derstanding ( praesumere' in the sense of ' anticipating $' mean- 
ing that he spoke of one subject here in his Preface, and of 
another in the body of his work. But the illustration does not 
coincide with this view 3 Catullus did not make two speeches : 
nor do I find any authority for such use of { praesumere.'— It 
has a peculiar rhetorical sense of ' pre-occupying ;' that is, 
g occupying the adversary's ground before him,' by an- 
ticipating and obviating his objections. — But this will not 
apply here. 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 13 

Paul demand that Plerophory, e or most assured sect. I. 
and most tenacious c assertion' of what our con- 



science believes ! In Rom. x. he calls it < confes- deSeT 
sion'; saying, " and with the mouth confession is 
made unto salvation." (Rom. x. 10.) And Christ 
says, " He who confesses me before men, him will 
I also confess before my Father." (Matt. x. 32.) 
Peter commands us to give a reason of the hope 
that is in us. (1 Pet. iii. 15.) And what need of 
many words? Nothing is more notorious and 
more celebrated amongst Christians than Asser- 
tion : take away assertions, and you take away 
Christianity. Nay, the Holy Ghost is given to 
them from heaven, that He may glorify Christ and 
confess him even unto death. Unless this be not 
asserting, to die for confessing and asserting ! In 
short, the Spirit is such an assertor, that He even 
goes out as a champion to invade the world, and 
reproves it of sin, as though he would provoke it 
to the fight; and Paul commands Timothy to 
" rebuke, and to be instant out of season." (John 
xvi. 8. 2 Tim. iv. 2.) But what a droll sort of 
rebuke r would he be, who neither assuredly be- 
lieves, nor with constancy asserts himself, the 
truth which he rebukes others for rejecting. I 
would send the fellow to Anticyra/ But I am far 
more foolish myself, in wasting words and time 
upon a matter clearer than the sun. What Chris- 
tian would endure that assertions should be de- 
spised ? This were nothing else but a denial of all 
religion and piety at once ; or an assertion, that 
neither religion, nor piety, nor any dogma of the 
faith, is of the least moment. — And why, pray, do 
you also deal in assertions ? ' I am not pleased 

e Luther has no authority for this interpretation of the terra 
Plerophory ; which expresses no more than ' full evidence to a 
fact, or truth ;' or, ' full assurance of that fact or truth.' But 
in substance he is correct ; ' confession ' (which amounts to 
assertion) is demanded. 

f Antic.'] The famous island of Hellebore • which cured mad 
people. Hence ' Naviget Anticyram.' — Hor. 



14 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART I. 



SECT. II. 

Erasmus 
shewn to 
be a Scep- 
tic. 



with assertions, and I like this temper better than 
its opposite/ 

But yon would be understood to have meant 
nothing about confessing Christ and his dogmas 
in this place. I thank yon for the hint ; and, out 
of kindness to you, will recede from my right and 
from my practice, and will forbear to judge of 
your intention; reserving such judgment for an- 
other time, or for other topics. Meanwhile, I 
advise you to correct your tongue and your pen, 
and hereafter to abstain from such expressions ; 
for however your mind may be sound and pure, 
your speech (which is said to be the image of the 
mind) is not so. For, if you judge the cause of 
Freewill to be one which it is not necessary to 
understand, and to be no part of Christianity, you 
speak correctly, but your judgment is profane. 
On the contrary, if you judge it to be necessary, 
you speak profanely and judge correctly. But 
then there is no room for these mighty complaints 
and exaggerations about useless assertions and 
contentions : for what have these to do with the 
question at issue ? 

But what say you to those words of yours in 
which you speak not of the cause of Freewill only, 
but of all religious dogmas in general, ' that, if 
the inviolable authority of the divine writings and 
the decrees of the Church allowed it, you would 
go over and side with the Sceptics ; so displeased 
are you with assertions.' 

What a Proteus is there in those words, c in- 
violable authority and decrees of the Church V 
As if you had a great reverence, forsooth, for the 
Scriptures and for the Church, but would hint a 
wish that you were at liberty to become a Sceptic. 
What Christian would speak so? If you say this 
of useless dogmas about matters of indifference, 
what novelty is there in it ? Who does not in 
such cases desire the licence of the Sceptical pro- 
fession? Nay, what Christian does not, in point 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 15 

of fact, freely use this licence and condemn those SECT. H. 
who are the sworn captives of any particular sen- Z~~ m 
timent? Unless (as your words almost express) shewn to 
you account Christians, taken in the gross, to be a b . e a Sce P* 
sort of men whose doctrines are of no value, 
though they be foolish, enough to jangle about 
them, and to fight the battle of counter-assertion ! 
If, on the contrary, you speak of necessary doc- 
trines, what assertion can be more impious than 
for a man to say, that he wishes to be at liberty to 
assert nothing, in such cases ? A Christian will 
rather say, f So far am I from delighting in the 
sentiment of the Sceptics, that, wherever the 
infirmity of my flesh suffers me, I would not only 
adhere firmly to the word of God, asserting as it 
asserts ; but would even wish to be as confident as 
possible in matters not necessary, and which fall 
without the limits of Scripture assertion.' For 
what is more wretched than uncertainty ? 

Again; what shall we say to the words subjoin- 
ed, ' to which I in all things willingly submit my 
judgment, whether I understand what they pre- 
scribe, or not'? What is this you say, Erasmus ? 
Is it not enough to have submitted your judgment 
to Scripture? do you submit it also to the decrees 
of the Church? What has she power to decree, 
which the Scripture has not decreed ? If so, what 
becomes of liberty, and of the power of judging 
those dogmatists : as Paul writes in 1 Cor. xiv. 
" Let the others judge?" You do not like, it seems, 
that there should be a judge set over the decrees of 
the Church; but Paul enjoins it. What is this 
new devotedness and humility of yours, that you 
take away from us (as far as your example goes) 
the power of judging the decrees of men, and 
submit yourself to men, blindfold? Where does 
the divine Scripture impose this on us? Then 
again, what Christian would so commit the in- 
junctions of Scripture and of the Church to the 
winds, as to say * whether I apprehend; or do not 



16 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part i. apprehend/ You submit yourself, and yet do not 

care whether you apprehend what you profess, or 

not. But a Christian is accursed, if he do not 
apprehend, with assurance, the things enjoined to 
him. Indeed, how shall he believe if he do not ap- 
prehend ? For you call it apprehending here, if a 
man assuredly receives an affirmation, and does 
not, like a Sceptic, doubt it. Else, what is there 
that any man can apprehend in any creature, if ' to 
apprehend a thing ' be ' perfectly to know and 
discern it'? Besides, there would then be no 
place for a man's at the same time apprehending 
some things, and not apprehending some things, in 
the same substance ; but if he have apprehended 
one thing, he must have apprehended all : as in 
God, for instance ; whom we must apprehend, be- 
fore we can apprehend any part of his creation. 

In short, these expressions of yours come to this : 
that, in your view, it is no matter what any man 
believes any where, if but the peace of the world 
be preserved ; and that, when a man's life, fame, 
property and good favour are in danger, he may 
be allowed to imitate the fellow who said 'They 
affirm, I affirm ; they deny, I deny;' and to account 
christian doctrines nothing better than the opi- 
nions of philosophers and ordinary men, for which 
it is most foolish to wrangle, contend and assert, 
because nothing but contention and a disturbing of 
the peace of the world results therefrom. ' What is 
above us, is nothing to us/ You interpose yourself, 
as a mediator who would put an end to our conflicts 
by hanging both parties and persuading us that we 
are fighting for foolish and useless objects. This 
is what your words come to, I say ; and I think you 
understand what I suppress here, my Erasmus. 5 

s Luther does not choose to speak out on the subject of 
Erasmus's scepticism and infidelity, but hints pretty broadly at 
it. There is but too strong evidence that the insinuation was 
just j and it constituted the most galling part of his attack. 
Erasmus's object was to rise upon the ruins of Luther ; but 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 17 

However, let the words pass, as I have said ; and, sect. hi. 

in the mean time, I will excuse your spirit, on the 

condition that you manifest it no further. O fear 
the Spirit of God, who searches the reins and the 
hearts, and is not beguiled by fine words. I have 
said thus much to deter you from hereafter loading 
our cause with charges of positiveness and inflexi- 
bility ; for, upon this plan, you only shew that you 
are nourishing in your heart a Lucian, or some 
other hog of the Epicurean sty, who, having no be- 
lief at all of a God himself, laughs in his sleeve at 
all those who believe and confess one. Allow us 
to be asserters, to be studious of assertions, and 
to be delighted with them ; but thou, meanwhile, 
bestow thy favour upon thy Sceptics and Acade- 
mics, till Christ shall have called even thee also. 
The Holy Ghost is no Sceptic ; nor has He written 
dubious propositions, or mere opinions, upon our 
hearts, but assertions more assured and more firmly 
rooted than life itself, and all that we have learned 
from experience. 11 

I come to another head, which is of a piece Christian 
with this. When you distinguish between chris- truth j s re ; 

. . , i n ^i 9 vealed and 

tian dogmas, you pretend that some are necessary ascertain- 
to be known, and some unnecessary; you say that ed,nothid- 
some are shut up, and some exposed to view. 1 
Thus, you either mock us with the words of others, 
which have been imposed upon yourself, or try 
your hand at a sort of rhetorical sally of your own. 
You adduce, in support of your sentiment, that say- 
ing of Paul's (Rom. xi. 33.) " O the depth of the 
riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God ?' 

with what face could the Pope or the Princes prefer an Infidel ? 
See Milner's Eccles. Hist. vol. iv. 935—945. 

h A beautiful testimony to the confidence inspired into the 
soul by the Holy Ghost's teachings ! We are more sure of 
the truth of His assertions than that we live ; and hold them 
more firmly than we do the results of experience. 

| Abstrusa, expos'ita.] Abst. ' thrust from us/ as into secret 
places j 'hidden from view,' like the apocryphal writings. 
Expos. ' set out in broad day/ like goods exposed to sale. 

C 



18 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part i. and that of Isaiah too (Isa. xl. 13.) " Who hath 
assisted the Spirit of the Lord, or who hath been 
his counsellor"? It was easy for you to say these 
things, either as one who knew that he was not 
writing to Luther, but for the multitude; or as one 
who did not consider that he was writing against 
Luther: to whom you still give credit, as I hope, for 
some study and discernment in the Scriptures. 
If not, see whether I do not even extort it from 
you. If I also may be allowed to play the rheto- 
rician, or logician, for a moment, I would make 
this distinction : God, and the writing of God, 
are two things ; no less than the Creator, and the 
creature of God, are two things. Now, that there 
be many things hidden in God, which we are igno- 
rant of, no one doubts; as he speaks himself of the 
last day, u Of that day knoweth no man, but the 
Father." (Matt. xxiv. 36.) And again, in Acts i. 
"It is not for you to know the times and the 
seasons." And again; "I know whom I have 
chosen."* (John xiii. 18.) And Paul says, "The 
Lord knoweth them that are His" : (2 Tim. li. 19.) 
and the like. But that some dogmas of Scripture 
are shut up ki the dark, and all are not exposed to 
view, has been rumoured, it is true, by profane 
Sophists (with whose mouth you also speak here, 
Erasmus), but they have never produced a single in- 
stance, nor can they produce one, by way of making 
good this mad assertion of theirs. Yet, by such 
hobgoblins as these, Satan has deterred men from 
reading the sacred writings; and has rendered 
holy Scripture contemptible, that he might cause 
his own pestilent heresies, derived from philoso- 
phy, to reign in the Church. I confess indeed 

k Luther appears to understand this text as most do : ' He 
knew who those were amongst men, whom he had chosen ;' 
with a supposed reference to eternal election. But the Greek 
text plainly determines it to mean, f I know the real character 
and state of those persons whom I have chosen j' referring to 
the Twelve exclusively, as those whom he afterwards (xv. 19.) 
declares himself to have chosen out of the world. 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. ]9 

that many passages of Scripture are obscure and sect nr. 

shut up; not so much through the vastness of the 

truths declared in them, as through our ignorance Chl jstian 
of words and grammar: but I maintain that these veaied and 
do not at all prevent our knowledge of all things ascertain- 
contained in the Scriptures. For what, that is of a e d d en " othid ' 
more august nature, can yet remain concealed in 
Scripture, now that, after the breaking of the seals, 
and rolling away of the stone from the door of the 
sepulchre, that greatest of all mysteries has been 
spread abroad, that ' Christ, the Son of God, is 
made man'; 1 that ' God is at the same time Three 
and One;' that c Christ has suffered for us, and 
shall reign for ever and ever'? Are not these 
things known, and even sung in the streets ? Take 
Christ from the Scriptures, and what will you any 
longer find in them ? 

The things contained in the Scriptures, then, 
are all brought forth into view, though some pas- 
sages still remain obscure, through our not under- 
standing the words. But it is foolish and pro- 
fane to know that all the truths of Scripture are 
set out to view in the clearest light, and, because 
a few words are obscure, to call the truths them- 
selves obscure. If the words be obscure in one 
place, they are plain in another; and the same truth, 
declared most openly to the whole world, is both 
announced in the Scriptures by clear words, and 
left latent by means of obscure ones. But of what 
moment is it, if the truth itself be in the light, that 
some one testimony to it be yet in the dark ; when 
many other testimonies to the same truth, mean- 
while, are in the light ? Who will say that a 
public fountain is not in the light, because those 

1 " Who was declared to be the Son of God with power, ac- 
cording to the spirit of holiness/' (opposed to, " which was 
made of the seed of David according to the flesh/' in the 
preceding verse) " by the resurrection from the dead." Rom.i.4. 
Fractis signaculis. The stone at the door of the sepulchre 
was sealed. Matt, xxvii. 65. 66. 

c2 



20 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

parti, who live in a narrow entry do not see it, whilst 

all who live in the market-place, do see it ? m 

sect. iv. Your allusion to the Corycian cave, n therefore, 

is nothing to the purpose. The case is not as 

. Sc f' i P t " re you represent it, with respect to the Scriptures. 
accuse/of The most abstruse mysteries, and those of greatest 
obscurity, majesty, are no longer in retreat, but stand at 

the very door of the cave, in open space, drawn 
out and exposed to view. For Christ hath 
opened our understanding, that we should un- 
derstand the Scriptures. (Luke xxiv. 45.) And 
the Gospel has been preached to every creature. 
(Mark xvi. 15. Coloss. i. 23.) Their sound 
has gone out into all the land. (Ps. xix. 4.) And 
all things which have been written, have been 
written for our learning. (Rom. xv. 4.) Also, 
all Scripture having been written by inspiration of 
God, is useful for teaching. (2 Tim. iii. 16.) 
Thou, therefore, and all thy Sophists come and 
produce a single mystery in the Scriptures, which 
still remains shut up. The fact, that so many truths 
are still shut up to many, arises not from any 
obscurity in the Scriptures, but from their own 
blindness, or carelessness ; which is such, that 
they take no pains to discern the truth, though 
it be most evident. As Paul says of the Jews, 
(2 Cor. iii. 15.) "The veil remains upon their 
heart/' And again, (2 Cor. iv. 3, 4.) " If our 
Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost ; 
whose hearts the God of this world hath blinded." 
To blame Scripture, in this matter, is a rashness 
like that of the man who should complain of the 
sun and of the darkness, after having veiled his 

m Luther's affirmation and argument is of the greatest im- 
portance here. All the truth of God, he maintains, is expli- 
citly and intelligibly declared in Scripture ; in some passages 
more obscurely, through our ignorance of words ; in others 
more manifestly and unequivocally : but there is no truth, 
no dogma, that is not distinctly taught and confirmed. . 

n A cave of singular virtue in Mount Corycus of Cilicia, 
supposed to be inhabited by the Gods. 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 21 

own eyes, or gone from but of the day-light" into SEC. iv. 

a dark room to hide himself. Then let these 

wretches cease from such a blasphemous per- ? c ?P tu ^ 
verseness as to impute the darkness and d illness accused of 
of their own minds to the Scriptures of God; obscurity. 
which are light itself. 

So, when you adduce Paul exclaiming "how 
incomprehensible are his judgments " you seem to 
have referred the pronoun his to the Scripture. 
But Paul does not say how incomprehensible are 
the judgments of Scripture, but of God. Thus 
Isaiah (Isai. xl. 13.) does not say 'who hath 
known the mind of Scripture/ but, " who hath 
known the mind of the Lord?" How 7 beit, Paul 
asserts that the mind of the Lord is known to 
Christians : but then it is about u those things 
which have been freely given to us"; as he speaks 
in the same place. (1 Cor. ii. 10. 16.) You see, 
therefore, how carelessly you have inspected these 
passages of Scripture; which you have cited, about 
as aptly as you have done nearly all your others 
in support of Freewill. And thus, your instances, 
which you subjoin with a good deal of suspicion 
and venom, are nothing to the purpose ; such as 
6 the distinction of Persons in the Godhead/ ' the 
combination of the divine and human nature, 5 and 
6 the unpardonable sin:' whose ambiguity, you say, 
has not even yet been clean removed. If you 
allude to questions which the Sophists have 
agitated on these subjects, I am ready to ask what 
that most innocent volume of Scripture hath done 
to you, that you should charge her with the abuse, 
w r ith which wicked men have contaminated her 
purity? Scripture simply makes confession of 
the Trinity of Persons in God, of the humanity of 
Christ, and of the unpardonable sin: what is there 

Re$ectum.~\ Erasmus's term ; taken from f the close cutting of 
the nails, or hair, or beard ;' or, from f the excision of the 
unsound tiesh in wounds.' It implies, that all the ambiguity is 
not yet withdrawn, though some of it may be. 



22 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part I. of obscurity, or of ambiguity here ? How these 
— things subsist, the Scripture has not told us, as 
you pretend it has ; nor have we any need to know. 
The Sophists discuss their own dreams on these sub- 
jects : accuse and condemn them, if you please, but 
acquit Scripture. If, on the other hand, you 
speak of the essential truth, and not of factitious 
questions, I say again, do not accuse Scripture, 
but the Arians, and those to whom the Gospel is 
hid, to such a degree, that they have no eye to see 
the clearest testimonies in support of the Trinity 
of Persons in God, and the humanity of Christ; 
through the working of Satan, who is their God. 

To be brief; there is a twofold clearness in 
Scripture, even as there is also a twofold obscu- 
rity: the one external, contained in the ministerially 
of the word ; the other internal, which consists in 
that knowledge which is of the heart. p If you speak 
of this internal clearness, no one discerns an iota 
of Scripture, but he who has the Spirit of God. All 
men have a darkened heart : so that, even though 
they should repeat and be able to quote every 
passage of Scripture, they neither understand nor 
truly know any thing that is contained in these 
passages ; nor do they believe that there is a God', 
or that they are themselves God's creatures, or 
any thing else. According to what is written 
in Psalm xiv. ; " The fool hath said in his heart, 
God is nothing." (Ps. xiv. 1.) For the Spirit 
is necessary to the understanding of the whole 
of Scripture, and of any part of it. But if you 
speak of that external clearness, nothing at all 

p Luther refers back to this passage in the progress of his 
work. (See below, Chap. ii. Sect, xiii.) It is not the public 
ministry of the word, but its instrumentality in general, of 
which he here speaks. Scripture reveals truth to the ear, and 
reveals truth to the heart. The former of these he calls an 
external clearness. The word which falls upon the ear is a plain 
and clear word. The other he calls an internal clearness. The 
truth which is contained in Scripture, and conveyed by a clear 
and plain word,, is understanded by the heart* 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 23 

has been left obscure, or ambiguous ; but every sect. v. 

thing that is contained in the Scriptures has been . 

drawn out into the most assured light, and de- 
clared to the whole world, by the ministeriality of 
the word. 

But it is still more intolerable, that you Freewill a 
should class this question of Freewill with those necessary 
which are useless and unnecessary, and should su ject * 
recount a number of articles to us in its stead, the 
reception of which you deem sufficient to con- 
stitute a pious Christian. Assuredly, any Jew or 
Heathen, who had no knowledge at all of Christ, 
would find it easy enough to draw out such a pat- 
tern of faith as yours. You do not mention Christ 
in a single jot of it ; as though you thought that 
christian piety might subsist without Christ, if 
but God, whose nature is most merciful, be wor- 
shipped with all our might. What shall I say 
here, Erasmus ? Your whole air is Lucian, and 
your breath a vast surfeit of Epicurus ? q If you 
account this question an unnecessary one for 
Christians, take yourself off the stage, pray : we 
account it necessary. 

If it be irreligious, if it be curious, if it be su- 
perfluous, as you say it is, to know whether God 
foreknows any thing contingently; whether our 
will be active in those things which pertain to 
everlasting salvation, or be merely passive, grace 
meanwhile being the agent; whether we do by 
mere necessity (which we must rather call suffer) 
whatever we do of good or evil, what will then be 
religious I would ask? what, important? what, 
useful to be known ? This is perfect trifling, 
Erasmus ! This is too much. Nor is it easy to 
attribute this conduct of yours to ignorance. An 
old man like you, who has lived amongst Chris- 
tians and has long revolved the Scriptures, leaves 

i ' Totus Lucianum spiras et inlialas mihi grandem Epicuri 
crapulam ' . Luc. One of the most noted satirical blas- 
phemers of Christianity : Epic. An atheistic heathen philo- 
sopher, who inculcated pleasure and indifference. 



24 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part. I. ns no place for excusing or thinking favourably of 

him. Yet the Papists pardon these strange things 

in you, and bear with you, because you are 
writing against Luther. Men who would tear you 
with their teeth, if Luther were out of the way 
and you should write such things ! Plato is rny 
friend, Socrates is my friend, but I must honour 
truth before both. For although you knew but 
little about the Scriptures and about Christianity, 
even the enemy of Christians might surely have 
known what Christians account necessary and 
useful, and what they do not. But you, a theolo- 
gian and a master of Christians, when setting 
about to prescribe a form of Christianity to them, 
do not, what might at least have been expected 
of you, hesitate after your usual sceptical manner, 
as to what is necessary and useful to them ; but 
glide into the directly opposite extreme, and 
in a manner contrary to your usual temper, by 
a sort of assertion never heard of before, sit now 
as judge, and pronounce those things to be unne- 
cessary which, if they be not necessary and be not 
certainly known, there is neither a God, nor a 
Christ, nor a Gospel, nor a faith, nor any thing 
else even of Judaism, much less of Christianity, 
left behind. Immortal God ! what a window shall I 
say? what a field rather, does Erasmus hereby open 
for acting and speaking against himself! What 
could you possibly write on the subject of Free- 
will, which should have any thing of good or right 
in it, when you betray such ignorance of Scripture 
and of piety, in these words of yours? But I will furl 
my sails, and will talk with you here, not in my 
own words, (as I perhaps shall do presently) but in 
yours. 

sect. VI. The form of Christianity chalked out by you 

has this article amongst others, that we must strive 

c™ s ™ us ' s with all our might: that we must apply ourselves 
tianity. to the remedy of repentance, and solicit the mercy 

of God by all means : without this mercy, nei- 
ther the will, nor the endeavour of man, is eflica- 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 25 

cious. Also, that no man should despair of SECT.vi. 

pardon from God, whose nature it is to be most 

merciful. These words of yours, in which there ^ri™ 8 '* 
is no mention of Christ, no mention of the Spirit; tianity, 
which are colder than ice itself, so that they have 
not even your wonted grace of eloquence in them; 
and which, perhaps, the fear of Priests and Kings r 
had hard work to wring from the pitiful fellow - , 
that he might not appear quite an Atheist; do 
nevertheless contain some assertions : as, that we 
have strength in ourselves; that there is such a 
thing as striving with all our strength ; that there 
is such a thing as God's mercy ; that there are 
means of soliciting mercy ; that God is by nature 
just; by nature most merciful, &c. &c. If then 
any one be ignorant, what those powers are, what 
they do, what they suifer, what their striving is, 
what its efficacy, and what its inefficacy; what 
shall he do ? what will you teach him to do ? It 
is irreligious, curious, and superfluous, you say, to 
wish to know whether our will be active in those 
things which pertain to everlasting salvation, or be 
only passive under the agency of grace. But here 
you say, on the contrary, that it is christian piety 
to strive with all our might ; and that the will is 
not efficacious without the mercy of God. In these 
words, it is plain, you assert that the will does 
something in matters which appertain to everlast- 
ing salvation, since you suppose it to strive ; on 
the other hand, you assert it to be passive, when 
you say that it is inefficacious without the merc}^ 
of God : howbeit, you do not explain how far that 
activity and that passiveness are to be understood 
to extend. Thus, you do what you can to make 

r Pontificum et Trjrannorum.'] These names comprehend the 
whole tribe of Popes, Cardinals, and Princes, by which the 
ecclesiastical and civil power of the Roman empire was now 
administered. Pont. ' Priests of high dignity,' generally -, not 
confined to the Pope, but including also his Cardinals. Tyran. 
f The civil rulers throughout the empire :' in Latin, used more 
generally in a bad sense, to denote ' usurped authority exer- 
cised with fierceness and violence ;' but not always. 



26 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part. I. us ignorant what is the efficacy of our own will 

and what the efficacy of the mercy of God, in that 

very place in which you teach us what is the con- 
joint efficacy of both. That prudence of yours, by 
which you have determined to keep clear of both 
parties, and to emerge in safety between Scylla 
and Charybdis, so whirls you round and round in 
its vortex; that, being overwhelmed with waves 
and confounded with fears s in the midst of the 
passage, you assert all that you deny, and deny 
all that you assert. 

sec. vii. I will expose your theology to you, by two or 

three similes. What if a man, setting about to 

Erasmus's make a good poem or speech, should not consider 
exposeYby or inquire, of what sort his genius is ; what he is 
similies. equal to, and what not ; what the subject which 

he has taken in hand requires ; but, altogether 
neglecting that precept of Horace, c what your 
shoulders are able to bear, and what is too heavy 
for them/ should only rush headlong upon his 
attempt to execute the work ; as thinking within 
himself, that he must try and get it done ; and that 
it would be superfluous and curious to inquire, 
whether he have the erudition, the powers of 
language, and the genius, which the task requires? 
What if a man, anxious to reap abundant fruits 
from his ground, should not be curious to exercise 
a superfluous care in exploring the nature of his 
soil, as Virgil in his Georgics curiously and 
vainly teaches us ; but should hurry on rashly, and 
having no thought but about finishing his work, 
should plough the shore, and cast in his seed 
wherever there is an open space, whether it be 
sand or mud ? What if a man, going to war and 
desirous of a splendid victory, or having some 
other service to perform for the state, should not be 
curious to consider what he is able to effect ; whe- 
ther his treasury be rich enough, whether his sol- 
diers be expert, whether he have any power to exe- 

s Confusus, expresses the state of the mariner's mind : Jiactibus 
obrutus, his drowning body. J 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 27* 

cute bis design; but should altogether despise that sec. vu. 

precept of the historian, ' before you act, there is - * 

need of deliberation, when you have deliberated, ^ e a s ™ US ' S 
you must be quick to execute;' and should rush on, exposed by 
with his eyes shut and his ears stopped, crying out similies - 
nothing but " war " "war," and vehemently pursu- 
ing his work? What judgment would you pro- 
nounce, Erasmus, upon such poets, husbandmen, 
generals, and statesmen ? I will add that simile in 
the Gospel. If any man, going about to build a 
tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, 
whether he hath wherewithal to finish it ; what is 
Christ's judgment upon that man ? 

Thus, you command us only to work, and forbid 
us first of all to explore and measure, or ascer- 
tain our strength, what we can do, and what we can- 
not do ; as though this were curious, unnecessary 
and irreligious. The effect of which is, that, whilst 
through excessive prudence you deprecate teme- 
rity, and make a shew t of sober-mindedness, you 
come at last to the extreme of even counselling 
the greatest temerity. For, although the Sophists 
act rashness and insanity, by discussing curious ll 
subjects, yet is their offence milder than yours; 
who even teach and command men, to be mad and 
rash. To make this insanity still greater, you 
persuade us that this temerity is most beautiful ; 
that it is christian piety, sobriety, religious gra- 
vity, and soundness of mind. Nay, if we do not 
act it, you, who are such an enemy to assertions, 
assert that we are irreligious, curious, and vain : v 
so beautifully have you escaped your Scylla, whilst 
you have avoided your Charybclis. It is your con- 

1 Detestaris, prcetendis.~] Detest, deprecari, amoliri, avertere, 
deos invocando. Prbetend., e to put forwards as a reason for act- 
ing, whether truly or falsely.' 

u Curiosa.] Applied in a bad sense to ' things we have no busi- 
ness with,' ' curiosus dicitur nonnunquam de iis qui nimia, cura 
utuntur in rebus alienis exquirendis.'' 

y Vanos answers to supervacaneos used above, expressing their 
'unprofitableness;' ' idle speculators.' 



28 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part. I. fidence in your own talents which drives you to 

i this point. You think you can impose upon men's 

minds by your eloquence, to such a degree, that 
no man shall be able to perceive what a monster 
you are cherishing in your bosom, and what an 
object you are labouring to achieve by these slip- 
pery writings of yours. But " God is not 
mocked ;" nor is it good for a man to strike upon 
such a rock as Him. 

Besides, if you had taught us this rashness in 
making poems, in procuring the fruits of the earth, 
in conducting wars and civil employments, or in 
building houses ; though it would be intolerable, 
especially in a man like yourself, you would after 
all have deserved some indulgence from Chris- 
tians at least, who despise temporal things. But, 
when you command even Christians to be these rash 
workmen, and, in the very matter of their eternal 
salvation, insist upon their being incurious as to 
their natural powers, what they can do and what 
they cannot do ; this, surely, is an offence which 
cannot be pardoned. For, they will not know 
what they are doing, so long as they are ignorant 
what, and how much they can do ; and if they 
know not what they are doing, they cannot pos- 
sibly repent should they be in error ; and impeni- 
tence is an unpardonable sin. To such an abyss, 
does that moderate, sceptical theology of yours 
conduct us ! 
sec. vni. It is not irreligious, then, nor curious, nor 

- superfluous, but most of all useful and necessary 

Absolute to a Christian, to know whether the will does any 
of the^sub- thing, or nothing, in the matter of salvation. Nay, 
ject of to say the truth, this is the very hinge of our dis- 
ordCTto m P u taiion ; the very question at issue turns upon 
true piety. it. x We are occupied in discussing, what the free 
will does, what the free will suffers, what is its 

x Status causa hujus.'] ' Status a rhetoribus dicitur quaestio, 
quae ex prima causarum conflictione nascitur j quia in eo tota 
causa stat et consistit.' 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 29 

proportion to the grace of God. If we be igno- sec.viii. 

rant of these things, we shall know nothing at ' 

all about Christianity, and shall be worse than Absolu . te 

j * necessity 

Heathens. The man who does not understand ofthesub* 
this subject, let him acknowledge that he is no J^ ct °[ . 
Christian. The man who censures or despises it, orderVo m 
let him know that he is the worst enemy of Chris- true 
tians. For, if I know not, what, how far, and how piety ' 
much, I can, of my own natural powers, do and 
effect towards God; it will be alike uncertain and 
unknown to me, what, how far, and how much, God 
can and does effect in me: whereas God "worketh 
all in all !" y 

Again ; if I know not the works and power of 
God, I know not God himself; and if I know not 
God, I cannot worship, praise, give him thanks, 
serve him ; being ignorant how much I ought to 
attribute to myself, and how much to God. We 
ought therefore to distinguish, with the greatest 
clearness, between God's power and our own 
power, between God's work and our own work; if 
we would live piously. 

You see then, that this question is the one 
part z of the whole sum of Christianity ! Both the 
knowledge of ourselves, and the knowledge and 
glory of God, are dependent upon the hazard of 
its decision. It is insufferable in you, then, my 
Erasmus, to call the knowledge of this truth irreli- 
gious, curious and vain. We owe much to you, 
but we owe all to piety. Nay, you think yourself, 
that all good is to be ascribed to God, and you 
assert this in the description you have given us of 
your own Christianity. And if you assert this, 
3 ou unquestionably assert in the same words that 



y Omnia in omnibus.'] Not only e all things in all men ; but 
c all things in all things; every jot and tittle in every single thing 
that is done. 

z Partem alteram.] Opposed to c altera pars' in the next 
section : considering the sum of Christian doctrine, as divisible 
into these two integral parts. 



30 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part I. the mercy of God does all, and that our will acts 

i nothing, but rather is acted upon; else, all will 

not be attributed to God. But, a little while after 
you declare, that the assertion, and even the know- 
ledge of this truth, is neither religious, pious, nor 
salutary. However, the mind which is inconsis- 
tent with itself, and which is uncertain and un- 
skilled in matters of piety, is obliged to speak so. 
sect. ix. The other part of the sum of Christianity, is to 
know whether God foreknows any thing contin- 
hasomit- ff en tfy> an( ^ whether we do every thing neces- 
ted the sarily. This part also you represent as irreligious, 
question of curious, and vain ; as all other profane men do. 
science. 16 " Nay, the devils and the damned represent it as 
utterly odious and detestable : and you are very 
wise in withdrawing yourself from these questions, 
if you may be allowed to do so. But, in the mean 
time, you are not much of a rhetorician or a theo- 
logian, when you presume to speak and to teach 
about Freewill, without these parts. I will be 
your whetstone ; and, though no rhetorician my- 
self, will remind an exquisite rhetorician of his 
duty. If Quintilian proposing to write on ora- 
tory should say, ' In my judgment those foolish 
and useless topics of invention, distribution, elo- 
cution, memory, and delivery should be omitted; 
suffice it to know that oratory is the art of speak- 
ing well ;' would not you laugh at the artist? This 
is precisely your method. Professing to write about 
Freewill, you begin with driving away, and casting 
off, the whole body, and all the members of this 
art, which you propose to write about. For, it is 
impossible that you should understand what Free- 
will is, until you know what the human will has 
power to do, and what God does; whether he 
foreknows, or not ? a 

a An prcesciat.'] The Newstadt editor inserts the word neces- 
^arib here. It is not needed. What is foreknowledge, if it be 
not absolute 5 i.e. if the event be not inevitable, or necessary } 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 31 

Do not even your rhetoricians teach you, that, sect.ix. 

when a man is going to speak upon any matter, : 

he must first speak to the point whether there be Erasmu . s 
such a thing, or no ; then, what it is ; what are its ted the 
parts ; what its contraries, its affinities, and question of 
its similitudes. But you strip poor Freewill, sc " en ce! e 
wretched as she isinherself, of all these appendages, 
and define b none of the questions which apper- 
tain to her, save the first; whether there be such a 
thing as Freewill? By what sort of arguments you 
do this, we shall see presently. A more foolish 
book on Freewill I never beheld, if eloquence of 
style be excepted. The Sophists, forsooth, who 
know nothing of rhetoric, have here at least 
proved better logicians than you; for in their 
essays on Freewill they define all its questions ; 
such as, ' whether it be / 'what it is/ -'what it 
does;' 'how it is/ &c. &c. Howbeit, neither do 
even they complete c what they attempt. I will 
therefore goad d both you and all the Sophists in 
this treatise of mine, until ye define the powers 
and the performances of Freewill 6 to me; yea, 

h Definis.~\ Def. does not express simply what we understand and 
mean by e a definition ;' but c a laying out of the subject matter 
of debate in propositions, and a supporting" of those proposi- 
tions by argument'. Such were Luther's several Theses ; with 
ninety-five of which, he first opened his attack upon the Pope- 
dom ; or rather upon the doctrine of Indulgences : a form of 
discussion common in those times. Perhaps our English word 
' determine ' comes nearest to it. 

c Efficiunt quod tentant."] They do not go through with the 
matter in hand, but leave it short : the ' vires et opera ' are still 
undefined ; neither distinctly affirmed, nor satisfactorily proved. 

d Urgebo.~\ * Driving, as you would drive cattle, or an 
enemy, before you.' 

e Liberi arbitrii vires et opera.~] Voluntas is c the faculty of the 
will at large.' Arbitrium, ' the essence, spirit, power of that 
faculty.' Erasmus maintains this power to be free ; Luther, that it 
is in bondage. Hence f liberum arbitrium,' ' servum arbitrium.' 
Vis, or vires arbitrii, ' the power or powers of this power.' Vis, 
or vires liberi arbitrii ; ' the power or powers of this power, as 
declared by Erasmrs to be free ;' and so, just corresponds with 
our idea and term of ( Freewill.' ' ' You shall define to me, what 



32 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part i. so goad you, with Christ's help, that I hope I 

• shall make you repent of having published your 

Diatribe. 

sect.x. It is most necessary and most salutary, then, 
for a Christian to know this also ; that God fore- 
God's fore- knows nothing contingently, but foresees, and pur- 

knowledge i i* i ii • ■• 

absolute, poses, and accomplishes every thing, by an un- 
flows from changeable, eternal, and infallible will. But, by 
2J2S£ this thunderbolt, Freewill is struck to the earth and 
completely ground to powder. Those who would 
assert Freewill, therefore, must either deny, or 
disguise, or, by some other means, repel this thun- 
derbolt from them. However, before I establish it 
by my own argumentation and the authority of 
Scripture, I will first of all encounter you per- 
sonally, with your own words. Are not you that 
Erasmus, who just now asserted, that it is God's na- 
ture to be just, that it is God's nature to be most 
merciful ? If this be true, does it not follow, that 
he is unchangeably just and merciful; that, as 
his nature changes not unto eternity, so neither 
doth his justice or his mercy change ? But 
what is said of his justice and mercy, must he 
said also of his knowledge, wisdom, goodness, 
will, and other divine properties. If these things, 
then, be asserted religiously, piously, and profit- 
ably concerning God, as you write ; what has 
happened to you, that, in disagreement with your- 
self, you now assert it to be irreligious, curious, 
and vain, to affirm that God foreknows necessarily? 
Is it that you think, that, c he either foreknows 
what he does not will, or wills what he does not 
foreknow ?' If he wills what he foreknows, his 
will is eternal and immutable, for it is part of his 
nature : if he foreknows what he wills, his know- 
are the powers of this faculty, which is thus supposed and main- 
tained by you to be free.' This is just the crux of modern Free- 
willers, as it was of Erasmus. They get on pretty well, till 
they are compelled to define. 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 33 

ledge is eternal and immutable, for it is part of bis sect. x. 

nature. 1 

Hence it irresistibly follows, that all which we 
do, and all which happens, although it seem to 
happen mutably and contingently, does in reality 
happen necessarily and unalterably, insofar as 
respects the will of God. For the will of God is 
efficacious, and such as cannot be thwarted ; since 
the power of God is itself a part of his nature : it 
is also wise, so that it cannot be misled. And 
since his will is not thwarted, the work which 
he wills cannot be prevented ; but must be pro- 
duced in the very place, time, and measure which 
he himself both foresees and wills. If the will of 
God were such as to cease after he has made a 
work which remains the same, as is the case with 
man's will when, after having builded a house as 
he willed, his will concerning it ceases ; as it 
does in death ; then it might be truly said, that 
some events are brought to pass contingently and 
mutably. But here, on the contrary, so far is it 
from being the case, that the work itself either 
comes into existence, or continues in existence 
contingently, by being made and remaining in 
being when the will to have it so hath ceased ; 
that the work itself ceases, but the will remains. 
Now, if we would use words so as not to abuse 
them, a work is said in Latin to be done contin- 
gently, but is never said to be itself contingent. 

f This abstruse but irresistible deduction from Erasmus's 
concession may perhaps be stated a little more familiarly, thus: 
If God does not foreknow all events absolutely, there must be 
a defect either in his will, or in his knowledge ; what happens 
must either be against his will, or beside his knowledge. Either 
he meant otherwise than the event, or had no meaning at all 
about the event ; or, he foresaw another event, or did not 
foresee any event at all. But the truth is, what he willed in 
past eternity, he wills now ; the thing now executed is what 
he has intended to execute from everlasting ; for his will is 
eternal : just as the thing which has now happened is what he 
saw in past eternity ; because his knowledge is eternal. 

D 



34 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART I. 



SECT. XI. 



Objection 
to term 
'necessity' 
admitted : 
absurdity 
of the dis- 
tinction 
between 
necessity 
of a con- 
sequence 
and of a 
conse- 
quent. 



The meaning is, that a work has been performed 
by a contingent and mutable will; such as is not 
in God. Besides, a work cannot be called a con- 
tingent one, except it be done by us contingently 
and as it were by accident, without any fore- 
thought on our part ; being so called, because our 
will or hand seizes hold of it as a thing thrown in 
our way by accident, and we have neither thought 
nor willed any thing about it before. 

# I could have wished indeed, that another and a 
better word had been introduced into our dis- 
putation than this usual one, c Necessity'; which 
is not rightly applied to the will of either God or 
man. It has too harsh and incongruous a mean- 
ing for this occasion; suggesting the notion of 
something like compulsion, and what is at least 
the opposite of willingness, to the mind. Our 
question, meanwhile, implies no such thing; for 
both God's will, and man's will does what it does, 
whether good or bad, without compulsion, by dint 
of mere good pleasure or desire, as with perfect 
freedom. The will of God, nevertheless, is im- 
mutable and infallible, and governs our mutable 
will — as Boethius sings, ' and standing fixed, 
mov'st all the rest' — and our will, wicked in the 
extreme, can of itself do nothing good. Let the 
understanding of my reader, then, supply what the 
word c necessity' does not express; apprehending 
by it, what you might choose to call the immutability 
of God's will, and the impotency of our evil will : 
what some have called ' a necessity of immuta- 
bility': not very grammatically or theologically. 

The Sophists, who had laboured this point for 
years, have at length been mastered, and are com- 
pelled to admit that * all events are necessary ;' 
but by the necessity of a consequence, as they say, 
and not by the necessity of a consequent. Thus 
have they eluded the violence of this question, but 

* N. B. This whole paragraph is omitted in the Nieustadt 
edition of 1591. 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 35 

it is by much more illuding themselves/ I will sect.xi. 

take the trouble of shewing you, what a mere no 

thing this distinction of theirs is. By necessity of a 
consequence (to speak as these thick-headed people 
do) they mean, that, if God wills a thing, the thing 
itself must be, but it is not necessary that the very 
thing which is, should be. For only God exists neces- 
sarily ; all other things may cease to be, if God 
pleases. Thus they say that the act of God is neces- 
sary, if he wills a thing, but that the very thing pro- 
duced is not necessary. Now what do they get by 
this play upon words ? Why, this, I suppose. The 
thing produced is not necessary; that is, has not 
a necessary existence — this is no more than say- 
ing, the thing produced is not God himself. Still 
the truth remains, that every event is necessary ; 
if it be a necessary act of God, or a necessary 
consequence : however it may not, now that it is 
effected, exist necessarily; that is, may not be 
God, or may not have a necessary existence. For, 
if I am of necessity made, it is of little moment to 
me that my being or making be mutable. Still 
I — this contingent and mutable thing, who am not 
the necessary God — am made. So that their 
foolery, that all events are necessary, through a 
necessity of the consequence, but not through a 
necessity of the consequent, has no more in it than 
this : all events are necessary, it is true ; but 
though necessary, are not God himself. Now 
what need was there to tell us this ? As if there 
was any danger of our asserting that the things 

s Eluserant, illuserunt.'] A play upon the words eludo, illiido. 
Elud. f to parry off,' r evade.' A metaphor taken from the 
gladiator/ who, by a dexterous turn of his body, escapes the 
weapon of his adversary. I do not find any classical authority 
for understanding: * illudo ' with the same reference to the 
gladiator. It refers to customs of a more general nature 5 
comprehending all sorts of injury inflicted in a way of decep- 
tion, or derision : ' to sport with,' or e make sport of j' some- 
times ' to ruin in sport.' Thus these Sophists have evaded 
their adversaries, but they have made fools of themselves. 

d2 



36 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part I. made are God, or have a divine and necessary 

nature. So sure and stedfast is the invincible 

aphorism, e All things are brought to pass by the 
unchangeable will of God :' what they call 
6 necessity of a consequence/ Nor is there any 
obscurity or ambiguity here. He says in Isaiah — 
" My counsel shall stand " and my will shall be 
brought to pass. (Isa. xlvi. 10.) Is there any 
schoolboy who does not understand what is meant 
by these words ' counsel/ c ivill/ ' brought to pass/ 
6 stand?' 
sec. xii. But why should these things be shut up from us 
— ; Christians, so that it is irreligious, and curious, aud 

presence va * n ^ or us *° searcn ar) d to know them ; when 
of this per- heathen poets, and the very vulgar, are wearing 
suasion, them threadbare, by the commonest use of them in 
conversation? How often does the single poet 
Virgil make mention of fate ! ' All things subsist 
by a fixed law/ ' Every man has his day fixed/ 
Again, ' If the fates call you/ Again, f If you 
can by any means burst the bonds of the cruel 
fates/ . It is this poet's sole object to shew, that 
in the destruction of Troy and the raising up of 
the Roman empire from its ruins, fate did more 
than all human efforts put together. In short, he 
subjects his immortal Gods to fate; making even 
Jupiter himself and Juno to yield to it necessarily. 
Hence they feigned these three fatal sisters, the 
Parcse; whom they represent as immutable, im- 
placable, inexorable. 

Those wise men discovered (what fact and ex- 
perience prove) that no man has ever yet received 
the accomplishment of his own counsels, but all 
have had to meet events which differed from their 
expectations. ' If Troy could have been defended 
by a human right hand, it had been defended even 
by this/ says Virgil's Hector. Hence that most 
hackneyed expression in everybody's mouth, 
c God's will be done/ Again, 'If it please God, 
we will do so/ Again, ' So God would have it/ 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 37 

€ So it seemed good to those above.' c So ye sec.xiii. 

would have it/ says Virgil. So that, in the minds of 

the common people, the knowledge of the predes- 
tination and foreknowledge of God is not less in- 
herent, we perceive, than the very notion that 
there is a God : although blessed Augustine, with 
good reason, condemns fate ; speaking of the fate 
which is maintained by the Stoics. But those 
who professed to be wise went to such lengths in 
their disputations, that, at last, their heart being 
darkened they became foolish, (Rom. i. 22.) and 
denied or dissembled those things which the poets, 
and the vulgar, and their own consciences, account 
most common, most certain, and most true. 

I go further, and declare, not only how true these The ex- 
things are (of which I shall hereafter speak more merity g and 
at large from the Scriptures) but also how reli- mischiev- 
2fious, pious, and necessary it is to know them. ° usness ° f 
For if these things be not known, it is impossible pretended 
that either faith or any worship of God should be and boast- 
maintained. For this would be a real ignorance \™ eia " 
of God; with which salvation cannot consist; as 
is notorious. For if you either doubt this truth, 
or despise the knowledge of it, that God fore- 
knows and wills all things ; not contingently, but 
necessarily and immutably ; how will you be 
able to believe his promises, and with full as- 
surance to trust and lean upon them ? For, when 
he promises, you ought to be sure that he knows 
what he promises, and is able and willing to ac- 
complish it : else you will account him neither 
true nor faithful ; which is unbelief, the highest 
impiety, and a denial of the most high God. 

But how will you be confident and secure, if you 
do not know that he certainly, infallibly, un- 
changeably, and necessarily knows and wills, and 
will perform what he promises ? Nor should we 
only be certain, that God necessarily and immu- 
tably wills and will perform what he has promised; 



38 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part I. but we should even glory in this very thing, as 

> Paul does in Romans iii. saying, u But let God 

be true and every man a liar." (Rom. iii. 4.) And 
again, " Not that the word of God hath been of 
none effect." (Rom. ix. 6.) And in another place, 
" The foundation of God standeth sure, having 
this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his." 
(2 Tim. ii. 19.) And in Titus i. Ci which God who 
cannot lie hath promised before the world began." 
(Tit. i. 2.) And in Hebrews xi. " He that cometh 
to God must believe that God is, and that he is a 
rewarder of them that hope in him." (Heb. xi. 6.) 
So then, the christian faith is altogether ex- 
tinguished, the promises of God and the whole 
Gospel fall absolutely to the ground, if we be 
taught and believe, that we have no need to know 
that the foreknowledge of God is necessary, and 
that all acts and events are necessary. For this 
is the alone and highest possible consolation of 
Christians, in all adversities, to know that God 
does not lie, but brings all things to pass without 
any possibility of change ; and that his will can 
neither be resisted, nor altered, nor hindered. See 
now, my Erasmus, whither this most abstinent 
and peace-loving theology of yours leads us ! 
You call us off from endeavouring, nay forbid that 
we endeavour, to learn the foreknowledge of God 
and necessity, in their influence upon men and 
things ; you counsel us to abandon such topics, 
to avoid and to hold them in abhorrence. By this 
ill-advised labour of yours, you at the same time 
teach us to cultivate an ignorance of God, (what 
in fact comes of itself, and even grows to us h ) to 
despise faith, to forsake God's promises, and to 
set at nought all the consolations of the Spirit 

h Agnata."] c What grows to us as a sort of monstrous ap- 
pendage j' like the membra agnata et agnascentia in animals ; 
parts that are more than should be by nature -, as a sixth 
finger, &c. 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 39 

and the assurances of our own conscience. In- sec.xiii. 

junctions these, which scarcely Epicurus himself 

would lay upon us ! 

Not content with this, yon go on to call that 
man irreligious, curious, and vain who takes pains 
to get the knowledge of these things • you call 
that man religious, pious, and sober who despises 
them. What else do you achieve then by these 
words, but that Christians are curious, vain, and 
irreligious ; and that Christianity is a thing of no 
moment at all ; vain, foolish, and absolutely im- 
pious. Thus it happens again, that whilst you 
would, above all things, deter us from rashness, 
being hurried, as fools usually are, into the oppo- 
site extreme, you teach us nothing but the most 
excessive temerities and impieties, which must 
lead us to destruction. Are you aware that your 
book is, in this part, so impious, so blasphemous, 
and so sacrilegious, as no where to have its 
like? 

I speak not of your intention, as I have already 
said, for I do not think you so abandoned as to 
wish, from your heart, either to teach these things, 
or to see them practised by others ; but I would 
shew you what strange things a man obliges him- 
self to babble, without knowing what he says, 
when he undertakes a bad cause. I would shew 
you also, what it is to strike our foot against divine 
truth and the divine word, whilst we personate a 
character in compliance with the wishes of others, 
and, with many qualms of conscience, bustle 
through a scene, in which we have no just call to 
appear. 1 It is not a play or a pastime to teach 

1 Aliorum obsequio .] Erasmus was a forced champion, writ- 
ing to please the Pope and his party, at their special request. 
Personam sumimus. He did not really stand in his own person, 
but was an actor sustaining a part which had been put upon 
him. Alienee scenes servire expresses the drudgery of labouring 
through a character in which he had made himself a volunteer. 
Scenes servire sometimes signifies ' to temporize $' but here I 
prefer retaining the original figure. — This is one of the poi- 



40 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part I. theology and piety ; in such an employment it is 

most easy to make that sort of fall which James 

speaks of, k when he says, " He that offendeth in 
one point becomes guilty of all." (Jam. ii. 10.) 
For thus it comes to pass, that, whilst we think we 
mean to trifle but a little, having lost our due re- 
verence for the Scriptures, we soon get entangled 
in impieties, and are plunged over head and ears 
in blasphemies. Just what has happened to you 
in this case, Erasmus ! May the Lord pardon 
and have mercy on you ! 

As to the fact, that the Sophists have raised such 
swarms of questions on these subjects, and have 
mixed a multitude of other unprofitable matters 
with them, such as you mention ; I am aware of 
this, and acknowledge it as well as you, and have 
inveighed against it with yet more sharpness, 
and at greater length, than you. But you are 
foolish and rash in mixing, confounding, and assi- 
milating the purity of sacred truth with the pro- 
fane and foolish questions of ungodly men. They 
have defiled the gold and changed its beautiful 
colour, as Jeremiah says, (Lam. v. 1.) but gold is 
not forthwith to be compared to dung and thrown 
away together with it ; as you have done. The 
gold must be recovered out of their hands, and 

soned arrows of Luther's treatise ; c a hireling expectant, with 
only half his heart in the cause.' 

k A forced application of James's words ; who speaks of a 
breach of one commandment as subjecting us to the curse of 
all, because such breach is derogatory to the authority of the 
Lawgiver. We set ourselves up against the Lawgiver, and 
impugn his authority by a single wilful breach of a single com- 
mandment, with guilt of the same quality, though not of the 
same extent and aggravation, as if we brake all. Luther ap- 
plies it to Erasmus's only meaning to have a little sport ; but 
then it is at the expense of Scripture : and such sport, and even 
the intention of such sport, implies a want of due reverence 
for Scripture. This first fault leads to all the impiety which 
follows ; and therefore he who is guilty of it, is guilty of all 
the impieties which follow, though he did not set out with the 
intention of committing them. ( Guilty of all,' because one 
leads to all 5 is the seed of all.— This is not James's meaning. 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 41 

the purity of Scripture separated from their dregs sec.xiv. 

and filth : and I have always been aiming to do 

this ; in order that one sort of regard might be 
paid to the divine word, and another to their 
trifling conceits. Nor should it move us, that no 
other advantage has been gained by these ques- 
tions, than that, with great expense of concord, 
we have come to love less, whilst we are far too 
eager to get wisdom. It is not our question, what 
advantage disputatious Sophists have gained ; but 
how we may ourselves become good Christians : 
nor ought you to impute to christian doctrine what 
ungodly men do amiss. For this is nothing to the 
purpose, and you might have spoken of it in ano- 
ther place, and have spared your paper. 

In your third chapter, you go on to make us ah Scrlp- 
these modest and quiet Epicureans by another turet ™ ih 
sort of counsel, not a whit sounder than the two published 
already mentioned : viz. that ' some propositions safel y- 
are of such a nature, that even though they were 
true and could be ascertained, still it would not be 
expedient to publish them promiscuously.' 1 Here 
again, you confound and mix things, as your cus- 
tom is, that you may degrade what is sacred to 
the level of the profane, without allowing the least 
difference between them ; and again fall into an 
injurious contempt of God and his word. I have 
said before, what is either plainly declared in 
Scripture, or may be proved from it, is not only 
open to view, but salutary ; and therefore may be 
with safety published, learned, and known; nay, 
ought to be so. With what truth, then, can you 
say, that there are things which ought not to be 
published promiscuously, if you speak of things 
contained in Scripture ? If you speak of other 
things, nothing that you have said concerns us ; 
all is out of place, and you have wasted your 

1 Prostituere promiscnis auribus.~\ Prostit. ' publicare/ diffa- 
mare,' {pro, sive prce, statuo.) Promise. ' confusus ;' hence, 
' general/ < common.' 



42 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART I. 



SEC. XV. 

The argu- 
ment 
' some 
truths 
ought not 
to be pub- 
lished' is 
either in- 
consistent 
with Eras- 
mus's act, 
or out of 
place. 



paper and your time in words. Again, you know 
that I have no agreement, upon any subject, with 
the Sophists; so that I deserved to have been 
spared by you, and not to have had their abuses 
cast in my teeth. It was against me that you 
were to write in this book. I know how guilty the 
Sophists are, and don't want you to teach me, 
having already reprehended them abundantly : 
and this I say, once for all, as often as you con- 
found me with the Sophists, and load my cause 
with their mad sayings. You act unfairly by me 
in so doing, and you very well know it. 

Let us now look into the reasons on which you 
build your counsel. Though it should be true, 
that God is essentially present in the beetle's 
cave, and even in the common sewer, no less than 
in heaven (which reverence forbids you to assert 
and you blame the Sophists for babbling so) ; 
still, you think it would be irrational to maintain 
such a proposition before the multitude. 

In the first place, babble who may, we are not talk- 
ing here about the actions of men, but about law and 
right ; not how we live, but how we ought to live ! 
Which of us lives and acts rightly in all cases? 
Law and precept are not condemned on this ac- 
count, but rather we by them. The truth is, you 
fetch these materials of yours, which are foreign 
to the subject, from a great distance, and scrape 
many things together from all sides of you, be- 
cause this one topic of the foreknowledge of God 
gravels you ; and, having no arguments to over- 
come it with, you try to weary your reader by a 
profusion of empty words, before you conclude. 
But we will let this pass, and return to our subject. 
— Then how do you mean to apply this judgment 
of yours, that there are some truths which ought 
not to be proclaimed to the vulgar ? Is Freewill 
one of these ? If so, all that I said before, about 
the necessity of understanding Freewill, returns 
upon you. Besides, why do you not follow your 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 43 

own counsel, and withhold your Diatribe? If you sec.xvl 

are right in discussing Freewill, why do you find 

fault? if it be wrong to so do, why do you discuss 
it ? On the other hand, if Freewill be not one of 
these subjects, you are again guilty of running 
away from the point at issue, in the midst of the 
discussion, and of handling foreign topics with great 
verbosity, where there is no place for them. 

Not that you deal correctly with the example Erasmus's 
which you adduce, when you condemn it as an amplest 
useless discussion for the multitude, ' that God is truths not; 
in the cave, or in the sewer/ You think of God r 1 * >e d pub " - 
too humanly. I acknowledge, indeed, that there sidere'd. 
are some frivolous preachers, who, having neither 
religion nor piety, and being moved solely by a 
desire of glory, or an ambition of novelty, or an 
impatience of silence, gabble and trifle with the 
most offensive levity. But these men please nei- 
ther God nor man, though they be engaged in 
asserting that God is in the heaven of heavens. 
On the contrary, where the preacher is grave and 
pious, and teaches in modest, pure, and sound 
words ; such a man will declare such a truth be- 
fore the multitude, not only without danger, but 
even with great profit. Ought we not all to teach 
that the Son of God was in the womb of the 
Virgin, and born from her bowels ? And what 
difference is there between the bowels of a wo- 
man and any other filthy place ? Who could not 
describe them nastily and offensively? Yet we 
should deservedly condemn such clescribers, be- 
cause there is an abundance of pure words to ex- 
press this substance, of which it has become ne- 
cessary to speak, m with beauty and grace. Christ's 
own body, again, was human like our own. And 
what is filthier than this ? Shall we therefore for- 
bear to say that God dwelt in him bodily, as 

m Earn necessitate™. 



44 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part. i. Paul speaks? n (Coloss. ii. 9.) What is more 

disgusting than death ? What more horrible than 

hell? But the Prophet glories that God is with 
him in death and in hell. (Psa. xxiii.) 

The pious mind then does not shudder to hear 
that God is in death or in hell; each of which is 
more horrible than the cave or the sewer : nay, 
since Scripture testifies that God is every where, 
and fills all things, not only does such a mind 
affirm that he is in those places, but will, as 
matter of necessity, learn and know that he is 
there. Unless, perchance, if I should somehow 
be seized by a tyrant, and cast into a prison or a 
common sewer, which has been the lot of many 
saints, I must not be allowed to invoke my God 
there ; or to believe that he is present with me, 
until I shall have come into some ornamented 
temple ! If you teach us that we ought to trifle 
in this way about God, and are so offended with 
the abiding places of his essence, you will, at 
length, not allow us to consider him as abiding 
even in heaven : for not even the heaven of hea- 
vens contains him, or is worthy to do so. But 
the truth is, you sting with so much venom, as 
your manner is, that you may sink our cause, and 
make it hateful, because you see it to be insuper- 
able and invincible, by powers such as yours. 

The second instance which you adduce, 6 that 
there are three Gods/ is, I confess, a stumbling- 
block, if it be indeed taught : nor is it true, nor 
does Scripture teach it. The Sophists, indeed, 
speak so ; and have invented a new sort of logic. 
But what is that to us ? 

n I would crave the reader's particular attention to this de- 
scription of the human body of the Lord Jesus Christ j that part 
of his frame which alone connected him and did really con- 
nect him with the damned substance of his people. It enters 
into the very entrails of ' the mystery of godliness.' 

° Sic odiose pungis.'] Pung. ' cuspid e vel aculeo ictum 
infero.' 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED, 45 

With respect to your third and remaining sec.xvi. 

example of confession and satisfaction, it is won- 

derful with how happy a dexterity you contrive to 
find fault : every where, as you are wont, just 
skimming the surface of the subject, and no more, 
lest you should appear, either, on the one hand, 
not simply to condemn our writings, or, on the 
other, not to be disgusted with the tyranny of the 
pontiffs : p a failure in either of which points would 
be by no means safe for you. So, bidding adieu, 
for a little while, to conscience and to God, (for 
what has Erasmus to do with the will of the latter 
and the obligations of the former, in these mat- 
ters?) you draw your sword upon a mere out- 
side phantom, and accuse the common people of 
abusing the preaching of free confession and 
satisfaction, 9 as their own evil nature may incline 
them, to the indulgence of the flesh; maintaining, 
that by necessary confession they are, some how 
or other, restrained. O famous and exquisite 
harangue ! Is this teaching theology ? To bind 
with laws and kill, as Ezekiel says, (xxiii. 
xiii. 19.) the souls which God has not bound. At 
this rate, you stir up the whole tyranny of the 
Popish laws against us forsooth, on the ground 
of their being useful and salutary ; because by 
them also the wickedness of the people is re- 
strained ! 

But I am unwilling to inveigh against you, as 
this passage deserves. I will state the matter as 
it is, concisely. A good theologian teaches thus : 
the common people are to be restrained by the 

p Pontificum tyranmdem offendereJ] Cffw&. 5 aversari/ 'offendi,' 
' molestiam capere y quasi impingere, incurrere in aliquid, 
quod displiceat. — Another poisoned arrow. Whilst he keeps 
no terms with Luther, he must still be the friend of liberty. 
He had gone far in satirizing the reigning abuses. But how 
galling the exposure ! 

i Free.'] That is, preaching that tliese are free ; that men 
may observe or neglect them,, according to their own indivi- 
dual conscience. 



46 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part i. external force of the sword, when they do amiss, 
as Paul teaches (Rom. xiii. 1 — 4); but their con- 
sciences are not to be ensnared by false laws, 
teasing and tormenting them for sins which God 
does not account sins. For the conscience is 
bound only by the commands of God; so that 
this interposed tyranny of the pontiffs, which 
falsely terrifies and kills souls inwardly, whilst it, 
to no purpose, harasses the body without, should 
be entirely taken out of the way. This tyranny 
does, indeed, compel men to outward acts of con- 
fession, and to other burdens, but the mind is not 
restrained by these things : rather, it is exaspe- 
rated to an hatred of God and of man. It hangs, 
draws, and quarters the body outwardly, without 
effect, making mere hypocrites within ; insomuch, 
that the tyrants who enact and execute laws of 
this sort are nothing else but rapacious wolves, 
thieves, and robbers of souls. These wolves and 
robbers, O most excellent counsellor of souls, thou 
commendest to us again. In other words, thou 
proposest the most cruel of soul-slayers to our 
acceptance; who will fill the world with hypo- 
crites, blaspheming God, and despising him in 
their hearts ; in order that men may be a little 
restrained in their outward carriage : as if there 
were not another method of restraining, which 
makes no hypocrites, and is obtained without de- 
stroying any man's conscience ; r as I have said, 
sc. xvn. Here you fetch in s a host of similes ; in which 
you aim to abound, and to be thought very apt 
and expert. You tell us, forsooth, that there are 



Erasmus 
neither un 



r Consul, auctor, refer to the customs of the Roman Repub- 
lic, of which the consul was the guardian and adviser : he was 
the author, or originater of measures. 

s Allegas, ' afferre aliquid probandi vel excusandi gratia.* 
A forensic expression ; these were his witnesses : but what did 
they prove ? only, what a clever fellow this Erasmus is. Illus- 
tration is not argument 3 but here it is manifestly a substitute 
for it. He amuses, imposes, irritates, and bewilders by his 
similies, because he has nothing solid wherewith to answer. 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 47 

some diseases which are borne with less evil than sc. xvn. 

they are removed withal ; such as the leprosy 

and others. You also add the example of Paul, ders J ands 

nor reds 

who distinguished between things lawful and the vast 
things expedient. A man may lawfully speak the impor- 
truth, you say ; to any body, at any time, in any t he°ques- 
way he pleases ; but it is not expedient for him to tion. 
do so. 

What an exuberant orator ! but one who does 
not at all know what he is saying. In a word, 
you plead this cause as if your affair with me were 
a contest for a sum of money which is recoverable, 
or for some other very inconsiderable object: whose 
loss (as being a thing of far less value than that dear 
external peace of yours) ought not to move any one 
to such a degree that he be unwilling to submit, do, 
and suffer, as the occasion may require; or to 
render it necessary that the world be thrown into 
such a tumult. You plainly intimate, therefore, 
that this peace and tranquillity of the flesh is far 
more excellent in your eyes than faith, conscience, 
salvation, the word of God, the glory of Christ, 
yea, God himself. I declare to you, therefore, 
and entreat you to lay this up in your inmost 
soul, that I, for my part, am in pursuit of a se- 
rious, necessary, and eternal object in this cause ; 
such and so great an object, that I must assert and 
defend it, even at the hazard of my life ; nay, 
though the whole world must not only be thrown 
into a state of conflict and confusion through it, 
but even rush back again into its original chaos, 
and be reduced to nothing. If you do not com- 
prehend, or do not feel, these things, mind your 
own business; and give others leave to compre- 
hend and to feel them, on whom God has be- 
stowed this power. 

For I am not such a fool, or such a madman, I 
thank God, as to have been willing to plead and 
maintain this cause so long, with such resolute- 
ness, with such constancy, (you call it obstinacy) 



48 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part i. amidst so many hair-breadth escapes with life, 

amidst so many enmities, amidst so many wiles 

and snares — in short, amidst the rage and 
phrenzy of men and devils ; for the sake of money, 
which I neither have nor desire ; or for the sake 
of glory, which, if I would, I could not obtain in 
a world that is so hostile to me ; or for the sake of 
bodily life, of which I cannot ensure the possession 
for a single moment. Do you think that you are 
the only person who hath a heart that is moved 
with these tumults ? I, no more than yourself, 
am made of stone, or born of the Marpesian rocks. 
But, since it must be so, 1 1 choose rather to endure 
the collisions of a temporal tumult, for asserting 
the word of God, with an invincible and incorrup- 
tible mind, rejoicing all the while in the sense and 
manifestations of his favour, than to be crushed to 
pieces by the intolerable torments of an eternal 
tumult, as one of the victims of G od's wrath. The 
Lord grant that your mind be not such (I hope 
and wish he may !) but your words sound as 
though, like Epicurus, you accounted the word of 
God and a future state to be mere fables ; when, 
by virtue of the doctorial authority with which 
you are invested, you wish to propose to us, that, 
in order to please pontiffs and princes, or to pre- 
serve this dear peace of yours, we should submit 
ourselves, and, for a while, relinquish the use of 
the word of God, sure as that word is, u if occasion 
require ; although, by such relinquishment, we re- 
linquish God, faith, salvation, and every christian 
possession. How much better does Christ advise 
us, to despise the whole world rather than do 
this! 
sc.xviii . g IA | y 0U sa y snc Y i fluugg^ because you do not 

Peace of rea d> or do not observe, that this is the most con- 

the world t , , 

1 ( Since I am reduced to this painful alternative of evils. 
u Certissimum.'] Opposed to what Erasmus gave reason to 
suspect that he accounted it : 'verbum Dei et futuram vitam 
fabulas esse putis.' 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 49 

stant fortune of the word of God, to have the sc.xvin. 

world in a state of tumult because of it. Christ 

explicitly asserts this, when he says, " I am not distu » bed * 
come to send peace, but a sword." (Matt. x. 34.) m° e nt gU " 
And in Luke, " I am come to send fire on the against a 
earth.- (Luke xii. 49.) And Paul (2 Cor. vi. 5.) £°f™; it . 
" In seditions/' &c. And the Prophet testifies the 
same thing, with great redundancy of expression, 
in the second Psalm, when he asserts, that the 
nations are in a tumult, that the people murmur, 
that the kings rise up, that the princes take coun- 
sel together against the Lord and against his 
Christ: as though he should say, numbers, gran- 
deur, riches, power, wisdom, justice, and what- 
soever is exalted in the world, opposes itself to 
the word of God. See, in the Acts of the Apos- 
tles, what happens in the world through Paul's 
preaching only, not to mention the other Apos- 
tles ; how he singly and alone stirs up both Gen- 
tiles and Jews : or, as his enemies themselves 
affirm in that same place, how he troubles v the 
whole world. The kingdom of Israel is troubled 
under the ministry of Elijah, as king Ahab com- 
plains. What a stir there was under the other 
Prophets ! whilst they are all slain with the 
sword, or stoned; whilst Israel is led captive 
into Assyria, and Judah, in like manner, to Baby- 
lon. Was this peace ? The world and its God 
neither can nor will endure the word of the true 
God ; the true God neither will nor can be silent. 
When these two Gods are at war, what can there 
be but tumult in all the world ? 

The wish to hush these storms is nothing else 
but a wish to take the word of God out of the 
way, and to stay its course. For the word of 
God comes for the very purpose of changing and 
renewing the world, as often as it does come; 
and even Gentile writers bear witness that a 

v Conturbat.'] Luther makes it e troubled waters') we, more 
correctly, ' the world turned upside down", dvaararwaavre?, 

E 



50 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

parti change of things cannot take place without com- 

■ motion and tumult, nay, without blood. It is the 

part of a Christian, now-a-days, to await and 
endure these things with presence of mind; as 
Christ says, u When ye shall hear of wars and 
rumours of wars, be not afraid, for these things 
must first be, but the end is not just yet." I, for 
my part, should say, if I saw not these tumults, 
the word of God is not in the world : but seeing 
them, I rejoice in my heart and despise them ; 
most sure, that the kingdom of the Pope and his 
adherents is about to fall : for the word of God, 
which is now running in the world, has especially 
invaded this kingdom. To be sure, I see you, 
my Erasmus, complaining of these tumults in 
many of your publications, and mourning over 
the loss of peace and concord. Moreover, you 
try many expedients to cure this disorder, with a 
good intention, as I verily believe ; but this is a 
sort of gout, which mocks your healing hands. 
For here, to use your own expression, you are, in 
truth, sailing against the stream; nay, you are 
extinguishing fire with stubble. Cease to com- 
plain, cease to play the physician: this confusion 
is of God in its origin, and in its progress ; nor 
will it cease, till it has made all the adversaries of 
the word like the mire of the streets. But it is a 
lamentable thing, that it should be necessary to 
admonish you, who are so great a theologian, of 
these things, as a scholar ; when you ought to be 
filling the place of a master. 

This, then, is the proper application of your 
aphorism (a very excellent one though you mis- 
apply it), ' that some diseases are borne with 
less evil than removed/ Let all those tumults, 
commotions, troubles, seditions, divisions, dis- 
cords, wars, and whatsoever other things there 
are of like kind, with which, for the word of 
God's sake, the whole world is shaken and clashed 
together in conflict; be called diseases better 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 51 

borne than cured. These things, I say, being 1 sc.xvin. 

temporal, are borne with less mischief than old 

habits of evil ; by which all souls must perish, 
except they be changed through the word of God. 
So that, by taking this word of God away, you 
take away eternal blessings ; God, Christ, the 
Spirit. But how much better were it to lose the 
world, than to lose the Creator of the world J who 
can create innumerable worlds afresh, and who is 
better than an infinity of worlds ! For what com- 
parison is there between temporal and eternal 
things ? Much rather, then, is this leprosy of 
temporal evils to be borne, than that, at the ex- 
pense of the slaughter and eternal damnation of 
all the souls in the world, the world should, by 
their blood and destruction, be pacified and cured 
of all these tumults : since one soul cannot be 
redeemed by paying the whole world for its ran- 
som. You have many beautiful and excellent 
similies and aphorisms : but when you come to 
sacred subjects, you apply them childishly, and 
even perversely ,* x for you crawl on the ground, 
and have no thought of any thing which is beyond 
mere human conception. Now, the things which 
God does are neither childish things, nor civil or 
human things; but things of God; y and such as 
exceed all human conception. For example ; 
you do not see that these tumults and divisions 
are marching through the world by divine coun- 
sel and operation, and you are afraid the skies 
should fall : but I, on the other hand, thanks be 
to God ! see good in these storms ; because I see 
other and greater in the world to come, compared 
with which, these seem but as the whispers of the 

x Perverse.'] c Distortedly/ in a manner contrary to their real 
meaning and use. Luther's charge is no less than this : what 
Erasmus counted evil was really good ; and vice versa. 

y Puerilia, civilia, humana, divina.~] Civ. ' What relate to 
man as a citizen' j opposed to ' puerilia', because it was not till 
a man attained a certain age that he became entitled to them. 

E 2 



52 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part i. gentle breeze, or the murmur of the soft-flowing 

stream. 

sc.xix. But you either deny, or profess not to know, 
that our dogma of free confession and satisfaction 

whether is tlie WOrd ° f G ° d * 

the dogma This is another 2 question: we, however, both 
of free con- know, and are sure, that it is the word of God; 
scriptural, and that word by which christian liberty is main- 
The Pope tained, in order that we may not allow ourselves to 
cannot'be ^ e entrapped into servitude by human traditions 
obeyed and laws. A point this, which I have abundantly 
TheTo^ie P roved elsewhere ; and, if you should have a mind 
must be to try the question, I am ready to plead in sup- 
leftt0 port of it, even at your judgment seat; a or to 
debate it with you. Many books of ours are 
before the public upon these questions. 

6 Still, however, the laws of the pontiffs ought to 
be suffered, and to be observed equally with the di- 
vine laws, out of love, if both the eternal salvation 
of men, through the word of God, and the peace of 
the world, may thus be made to subsist together 
without tumult/ 

I have said before that this cannot be. The 
prince of this world does not suffer that the laws 
of his Pope and his cardinals be maintained in 
consistency with liberty, but has it in his mind to 
entrap and enchain -men's consciences by them. 
The true God cannot endure this. Thus it is, that 
the word of God, and the traditions of men, are 
opposed to each other with an implacable discord, 

z Hctc alia qucestio est.'] ' Other' than that of the expediency 
of proclaiming it, as supposed to be acknowledged truth. Free 
confession is introduced by Erasmus, as his third example of a 
dogma, which, though true, ought not to be circulated. 

a Et tibi dicere.~\ Like his * etiam te judice', in Part ii. 
Sect. i. means making Erasmus himself the judge. — Vel con- 
serere manus might be supposed to allude to an ancient cus- 
tom, f ex jure manu consertum vocare' ; when a party expressed 
his willingness to go with his adversary into the field, if dissa- 
tisfied with the award of the tribunal : a species of judicial 
combat. But I prefer the simpler antithesis of the text. 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 53 

no other than that with which God himself and sc. xix. 

Satan oppose each other ; and the one undoes the 

works and subverts the dogmas of the other, like 
two kings laying waste each other's kingdom. 
" He that is not with me is against me," says 
Christ. 

Now, with respect to 'the fear that the multitude, 
who are prone to crimes, will abuse such liberty ;' 
This must be classed amongst those disturb- 
ances we have been speaking of, as a part of that 
temporal leprosy which is to be tolerated ; of that 
evil which is to be endured. Nor are these per- 
sons of so great account, that the word of God 
should be given up in order to restrain their 
abuse of it. If all cannot be saved, still some are 
saved ; for whose sake the word of God is given : 
and these will love it the more fervently, and con- 
sent to it the more reverently. And what evils, 
pray, have wicked men not done even before this, 
when there was no word of God; rather, what 
good did they? Has not the world for ever over- 
flowed with war, fraud, violence, discord, and all 
manner of wickedness, so that Micah compares 
the very best amongst them to a thorn? (Micah 
vii. 4.) What would he call the rest, think you ? 
Now, indeed, it begins to be imputed to the pro- 
mulgation of the Gospel, that the world is wicked; 
because through the good Gospel it more truly 
appears how wicked the world was, whilst it lived 
in its own darkness, without the Gospel. So, illite- 
rate men attribute it to literature, that their igno- 
rance has become notorious since letters have 
flourished. Such are the thanks we render to the 
word of life and salvation ! What a fear, then, 
must we suppose to have been kindled amongst 
the Jews, when the Gospel absolved all men from 
the law of Moses ! b What degree of licence did 

b Luther's expressions are not equivocal here, but irrestric- 
tive and direct : ' absolved all men from the law of Moses r 
without excepting any part of that law ; and it is essential to 



54 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

parti, this prodigious liberty not seem to be hereby 

conceding to wicked men ? But the Gospel was 

not therefore withheld. Wicked men were left 
to their own ways, and it was charged upon the 
godly not to use their liberty for an occasion to 
the flesh. (Gal. v. 13.) 
sec. xx. Nor does that part of your counsel or remedy 
~ stand good, where you say, ' It. is lawful to de- 
counsei S S c ^ are the truth amongst any persons, at any time, 
about per- and in any manner, but it is not expedient f and 
and*' la^e 6 ' ver y a ^ surc % adduce Paul's words, " All things 
pernicious, are lawful unto me, but all things are not expe- 
dient.- (1 Cor. vi. 12.) 

Paul is not here speaking about doctrine, or 
about teaching the truth, as you, confounding his 
words, and drawing them whither you please, 
would represent him to do. Nay, he would have 
the truth proclaimed every where, at any time, by 
any means ; insomuch, that he even rejoices that 
Christ should be preached for an occasion, and 
out of envy ; and expressly testifies, in the very 
words, that he rejoices if Christ be preached by 
any means ? Paul is speaking about the practice 
and use of doctrine ; to wit, of those vaunters of 
christian liberty, who, " seeking their own,- 6 
cared not what stumbling-blocks they made, and 
what offences they occasioned by them to the 
weak. The true doctrine is to be preached 

his argument that he be understood thus comprehensively. — 
Else what ground of fear r 

c Erasmus interposes in the form of an adviser, or physician ; 
reprobating the course pursued by others, and suggesting a 
better : this was no other than to modify the truth by squaring 
it to times, places, and persons. 

d The allusion is evidently to Philip i. 18, which fully jus- 
tifies his ( quovis modo.' " What then r notwithstanding every 
way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached j and 
I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." The ' every way , 
or ' by any means', is s whatsoever spirit he be preached with' 5 
f sincere, or insincere/ 

e e< For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus 
Christ's." (Philip ii. 21.) 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 55 

always, openly, steadily, never to be turned aslant, sc. xx. 

never to be concealed : f for there is none occasion 

of stumbling in it; 'tis the rod of straightness. g And 
who ever empowered you, or gave you the right, 
to bind the christian doctrine to places, persons, 
times, cases ; when Christ wills it to be published, 
and to reign in the world with the most perfect 
freedom ? " For the word of God is not bound," 
says Paul, (2 Tim. ii. 9.) and shall Erasmus bind 
it? Nor hath God given us a word which is to 
make selection of places, persons, and times; 
since Christ says, " Go ye into all the world." 
He does not say, c Go to a certain place, and 
to a certain place go not/ as Erasmus speaks. 
Again ; " Preach the Gospel to every creature." 
(Mark xvi. 15.) He does not sa}^ f Preach it to 
some, to some preach it not/ In short, you pre- 
scribe acceptance of persons, acceptance of places, 
and acceptance of manner ; that is to say, time- 
servings ; in ministering the word of God ; 
whereas, this is one great part of the glory of 
the word, that cc there is no acceptance of per- 
sons" (as Paul says) and (i God respecteth not 
persons." You see again, how rashly you make 
war upon h the word of God, as though you pre- 

f Ohliquanda,~] Obliq. is sometimes applied to e the veering 
and tacking' of ships ; but the essential idea is f bending, or 
making crooked, what is in itself straight.' It is here opposed 
to constanter, as ( celanda' is to ' palam'. The truth must be 
preached in its straightness, or perpendicularity, not bent down- 
wards or sideways, that it may be accommodated to the taste, 
or lusts, or supposed unaptnesses of the hearer. 

s The allusion is evidently to Psa. xiv. 6. Luther seems to 
have understood the Gospel or doctrine of Christ by this rod 
or sceptre ; as he does also, though not exclusively, in his ex- 
position of this psalm. (Vide in loco.) I should rather under- 
stand it of his own personal conduct, as a prince. But according 
to Luther's allusion, the truth being a straight or upright rod, 
he who walks by it will walk straightly, or uprightly, and will 
not give occasion to others to walk crookedly, or pronely. 

h The word of God teaches that there is no respect of per- 
sons, and that God regardeth not the persons of men. Coloss. 
iii. 25. Rom. ii. 6. Gal. ii. 6. Ephes. vi, 9. James ii. 1. Luke 



56 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part. I. ferred your own thoughts and counsels very far 

before it. 

If now w r e should request you to distinguish 
times, persons, and modes of speaking the truth 
for us, when will you determine them? The 
world will have laid its end to sleep, and time be 
no more, before you have fixed upon a single 
sure rule. Meanwhile, what becomes of the 
teacher's office? where shall we find the souls 
which are to be taught ? Nay, how is it possible 
that you should lay down any sure rule, when you 
know no rate by which to estimate persons, times, 
and modes of speech ? But if you assuredly knew 
such a rate, still you are ignorant of the hearts 
of men. Unless, indeed, you should choose to 
adopt this standard for your manner of speaking, 
for your time and your person; ' teach the truth, 
so that the Pope shall not be indignant, so that 
Caesar shall not be angry, so that the cardinals 
and princes be not displeased; provide further, 
that there be no tumults or commotions in the 
world, and that the multitude be not stumbled, 

xx. 21. Acts x. 34, &c. &c. How contrary is it, then, to the clear 
testimony of the word, which declares that God mocks all 
human distinctions ; that Jew and Greek, master and servant, 
or slave, rulers and subjects, pillars of the church, and men 
disinterested in the church, are alike regarded and disregarded 
by Him ; to have respect to these distinctions, as Erasmus 
would counsel us, in the ministry of the word ! These testi- 
monies are sometimes perverted to mean a denial of God's 
electing grace; which they do not, in the slightest degree, im- 
pugn, nor did Luther conceive so. He maintained that grace 
as firmly as any man. The truth is, e respect of persons' in 
Scripture, means e respect of persons according to human and 
earthly distinctions ; in which regards, God, contrariwise to 
man, puts no difference between them. His distinctions, which 
he palpably makes, are built upon another foundation. " Where 
there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircum- 
sion, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free ; but Christ is all, and 
in all." (Coloss. iii. 11.) But then, " Blessed be the God and 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all 
spiritual blessings (or blessedness) in heavenly places in Christ ; 
according as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the 
world," &c. Eph. i. 3, 4. &c. 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 57 

and made worse/ You have already seen, what sc.xxi. 

sort of a counsel this is. But you choose to play 

the rhetorician after this manner, with idle words, 
because you must say something. 

How much better were it for us wretched men 
to give to God, who knows all hearts, the glory 
of prescribing the manner, persons, and times of 
speaking the truth ! He knows the c what', the 
' when', the ' how', and the ' to whom', we ought 
to speak ; and his injunction is, that his Gospel, 
which is necessary to all, should know no limits of 
place or time, but should be preached to all men, 
at all times, and in all places. I have already 
shewn that the things set forth in the Scripture 
are such as lie exposed to the view of all men; 
such as, whether we will or no, must be spread 
abroad amongst the common people ; and such as 
are salutary. What you also maintained yourself 
in your Paraclesis, when you gave better counsel 
than you do now. Let us leave it to those who 
are unwilling that souls should be redeemed; such 
as the Pope and his myrmidons ; to bind the word 
of God, and shut men out from eternal life and the 
kingdom of heaven; neither entering in them- 
selves, nor suffering others to enter in: whose 
mad rage you, Erasmus, are perniciously serving 
by this suggestion of yours. 

With the same sort of wariness you, in the next The Fa- 
place, suggest that we ought not to make public ^ e £ s no * 
declarations in opposition to any thing which may on a level 
have been determined wrongly in general coun- ^ ith . 
cils; lest we should give a handle for despising thelrteci- 
the authority of the Fathers. sions have 

This you say to please the Pope ; who hears it J^*^ " 
with more pleasure than he does the Gospel : un- from the 
grateful in the extreme, if he does not, in return, word * 
honour you with a cardinal's hat and revenues ! 
Meanwhile, what is to become of those souls which 
have been fettered and slain by the unrighteous 
decree? Is this nothing to you? Why, you 



58 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



part I. always feel, or pretend to feel, that the statutes 

of men may be observed without any danger; in 

coincidence with the pure word of God. If they 
could, I would readily accord with this propo- 
sition of yours. So then, if you be still ignorant, 
I will again inform you, that c human statutes 
cannot be observed in conjunction with the word 
of God/ For the former bind men's consciences, 
the latter looses them ; and they fight one with 
another like fire and water, except the former be 
kept freely; that is, as statutes not binding: a 
thing very contrary to the Pope's will ; and which 
must be so, unless he should wish to destroy and 
put an end to his own kingdom ; which is only 
kept up by ensnaring and fettering men's consci- 
ences, whilst the Gospel declares them to be free. 
The authority of the Fathers, then, must be set at 
nought, and all bad decrees (in which number I 
include all such determinations as are not war- 
ranted by the word of God) must be torn in pieces, 
and thrown to the dogs ; for Christ's authority is 
of another sort than that of the Fathers. In short, 
if your statement comprehends the word of God, 
it is a wicked one : if it be confined to other 
writings, your verbose discussion of the sentiment 
which you recommend is nothing to me ; my as- 
sertions have respect to the word of God only. 1 

In the last part of your Preface, you seriously 
dissuade us from this sort of doctrine, and fancy 
that you have almost succeeded. What is more 
injurious, you say, than that this paradox should 
be published to the world, that ' whatsoever is 
done by us is not done by Freewill, but by mere 

1 Erasmus had said, that bad decisions should be hushed up ; 
and if spoken of, it should rather be said, that they were good at 
the time, though unseasonable now. Luther replies, if your 
remark be intended to affect any decision which is founded 
upon the word of God, the sentiment is impious. With res- 
pect to any other sort of decisions, whether you choose to call 
them pious and holy, or acknowledge them to be faulty, I have 
nothing to do with them. 



SC.XXII. 

Injurious- 
ness of 
certain pa- 
radoxes, 
■ all things 
by neces- 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 59 

necessity ' ? And that saying of Augustine's that sc. xxn. 

< God worketh both good and evil in us ; that he ■ 

rewards his own good works in us, and punishes sity .'''j?, od 
his own bad works in us ' ? Here you are rich in 
giving, or rather, in demanding reasons. c What 
a window will this saying open to impiety, if it be 
commonly published amongst men ? What wicked 
man will correct his life ? Who will think he is 
loved of God ? Who will strive with his flesh V 

I am surprised that, in this mighty vehemence 
and agony of yours, you did not remember your 
cause, and say, what will then become of Freewill? 
Let me also become speaker in my turn, Erasmus, 
and I will ask you, if you account these paradoxes 
to be the invention of men, why dispute ? why 
boil with rage ? Whom are you opposing ? Is 
there a man in all the world, at this day, who has 
more vehemently inveighed against the dogmas of 
men, than Luther has done ? So that this admoni- 
tion of yours is nothing to me. But, if you be- 
lieve these paradoxes to be the word of God, 
what face have you? k what modesty have you? 
Where is now — I will not say, that wonted so- 
briety of Erasmus, but — that fearful reverence 
which is due to the true God ; when you as- 
sert, that nothing can be affirmed more unpro- 
fitable - than this word of God ? What ! I suppose 
your Creator is to learn from his creature what is 
useful to be preached, and what not ? Yes, 
this foolish and ill-advised God has not known 
hitherto what is expedient to be taught; but now 
at last his master Erasmus will prescribe to him 
the manner in which he shall be wise, and in which 
he shall deliver his commands ! He, forsooth, 
would ha^e been ignorant, unless you had taught 
him, that your inference follows upon his paradox ! 

k Ubi frons tua.~\ The face is the index of sensibility: 
effrontery is the result of obduracy. Luther's question implies 
6 you can have no face j you must have a brow of brass, to 
speak so.' 



60 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part I. If God, then, hath been willing to have such 

things spoken openly, and spread abroad amongst 

the common people, without regard to con- 
sequences ; who are you, that you should forbid 
him ? 

Paul the Apostle explicitly declares the same 
things, in his Epistle to the Romans, open-mouthed, 
not in a corner, but publicly and before the whole 
world, in even harsher words ; saying, " Whom 
he will he hardeneth." (Rom. ix. 18.) And again, 
<c God willing to make his wrath known." (Rom. ix. 
22.) What is harsher (to the flesh, I mean) than 
that saying of Christ, " Many are called, but few 
chosen." (Matt. xxii. 14.) And again, "I know 
whom I have chosen." 1 (John xiii. 18.) All these 
sayings, forsooth, if we listen to your suggestions, 
are amongst the most injurious that can be con- 
ceived ; inasmuch as they are the instruments by 
which ungodly men fall gradually m into despera- 
tion, hatred of God, and blasphemy. 

Here, as I perceive, you reckon that the truth 
and usefulness of Scripture are to be weighed and 
decided by the judgment of men, and these no 
other than the most ungoldly j so that, what they 
shall be pleased with, and account tolerable, that, 
verily, is true, is divine, is salutary; and, what 
shall be otherwise in their eyes, that is straight- 
ways useless, false, and pernicious. What do 
you propose by this counsel, but that God's words 
should be dependent upon the will and authority 
of men, so as to stand or fall by them ? whereas 
the Scripture, on the other hand, says, that every 
thing stands or falls by the will and authority of 
God ; nay, that (( all the earth must keep silence 
before the face of the Lord." (Hab. ii. 20.) To 
speak as you do, a man must imagine the living 
God to be nothing else but some light and igno- 

1 See Chap. i. Sect. iii. note \ 

m Prolabantur.'] Translate f sensim devenire/ ' palatini ao 
cedere.' 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 61 

rant sort of Ranter, declaiming in a rostrum; sc. xxn. 

whose words you are at liberty, if you choose, to 

interpret any how you please ; accepting or re- 
jecting them, according to the emotions or affec- 
tions which you see produced by them in wicked 
men. You clearly shew here, my Erasmus, how 
sincere you was before, in persuading us to re- 
spect the awful majesty of the divine judgments. 
When the question was about the dogmas of 
Scripture, and there was no need to call for reve- 
rence towards them, on the ground of their beiog 
shut up, and hidden from view; inasmuch as 
there are none of this sort ; you, in words of 
great solemnity, threatened us with Corycian 
caves, lest we should break in curiously: so as 
almost to deter us, by fear, from reading Scrip- 
ture at all ; that very Scripture which Christ and 
his Apostles, and even your own pen, elsewhere, 
so greatly urge and persuade us to study ! But, 
here, when we are actually arrived, not at the 
dogmas of Scripture and the Corycian cave only, 
but truly at the awful secrets of the divine ma- 
jesty ; to wit, why he works in the manner which 
hath been mentioned; here, I say, you break 
through bolts and bars, and rush forwards, with 
all but blasphemies in your mouth ; shewing all 
possible indignation against God, because you 
are not permitted to see the design and arrange- 
ment of such a judgment of his ! n Why do not 

n Non licet videre."] Referring to Augustine's saying, that 
f God worketh all things in us ; rewarding his own good, and 
punishing his own evil.' In a future part of the work, where 
this subject is more fully gone into, and to which I defer my 
observations on it as here briefly glanced at ; I trust it will ap- 
pear, that the word of God does not really leave us in that 
depth of darkness which Luther's language here implies, and 
which his fuller statement, hereafter made, affirms. God has 
not revealed himself that he might remain hidden ; as un- 
known, or even yet more unknown than he was before ; but, 
amidst the unsearchableness of his infinity, has, by his counsel 
of manifestation, which the Scripture records, unveiled much 



62 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART I. 



SC.XXIII. 

Answers to 
Erasmus's 
objec- 
tionary 
questions, 
who will 
take pains, 
&c? Two 
reasons 
why these 
things 
should be 
preached. 



you here, also, pretend obscurities and ambigui- 
ties ? Why do not you both restrain yourself, and 
deter others, from prying into those things which 
God hath willed to be kept secret from us, and 
hath not published in his word? You should 
have laid your hand upon your mouth here, re- 
vering the unrevealed mystery, adoring the secret 
counsels of the Divine Majesty, and exclaiming 
with Paul, " Nay, but, O man, who art thou that 
repliest against God ?" (Rom. ix. 20.) 

You say, * who will take pains to correct his 
life V I answer, no man ; nor will any one be 
even able to do so ; for God pays no regard to 
your amenders of life, which have not the Spirit, 
since they are but hypocrites. But the elect and 
godly will be amended by the Holy Spirit : the 
rest will perish unamended. For Augustine does 
not say that the good works of none will be 
crowned, nor yet that the good works of all will 
be crowned ; but that the good works of some are 
crowned. There will be some, therefore, w r ho 
amend their life. You say, 'Who will believe 
that he is beloved of God?' I answer, no man 
will believe so, or be able to believe so; but the 
elect will believe so : the rest, not believing, will 
perish ; storming and blaspheming, as you do in 
this place. There will be some, therefore, that 
believe. 

As to what you say, c that a window is opened 
to impiety by these doctrines ? — What if the dis- 
orders resulting from them be referred to that 
leprosy of tolerable evil, which I have already 
hinted at ? Still, by the same dogmas, a door is 
at the same time opened to righteousness, and an 
entrance into heaven, and a way to God, for the 



of himself to our view j which, before and without it, was, and 
must for ever have remained, concealed. Luther —prodigy as 
he was, in his day — had not the clue of God-manifestation to 
guide him through the labyrinth 5 and, therefore, counted 
much that is light, darkness. 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 63 

elect and godly. Now if, according to your ad- sc.xxin. 

vice, we should abstain from these dogmas, and 

should hide this word of God from men, so that 
each one, beguiled by a false persuasion of his 
safety, should not learn to fear God, and to be 
humbled, that, through the means of wholesome 
fear, he may, at length, come to grace and love ; 
then, we shall have nobly closed your window of 
impiety ; but, in its place, we shall open folding 
doors ; nay, pits and gulfs ; not only to impiety, 
but even to the belly of hell; for ourselves and 
for all men. Thus, we should neither enter 
heaven ourselves, nor suffer others, who were 
entering, to go in. 

'What is the use or necessity, then, of publish- 
ing such things to the world, when so many evils 
seem to spring from them V 

I answer \ it were enough to say, tf God would 
have these things published : and, as to the prin- 
ciples of the divine will, we have no right to ask 
them ; we ought simply to adore that will, giving 
glory to God ; because He, the only just and wise 
one, injures no man, and cannot possibly do any 
thing foolishly or rashly ; though it may appear 
far otherwise to us/ Godly men are content with 
this answer. But, to be lavish of our abundance, 
let it be replied, that c two things require the 
preaching of these truths/ The first is, the 
humbling of our pride, and a thorough knowledge 
of the grace of God : the second, the very nature 
of christian faith. For the first, God hath pro- 
mised his grace, with certainty, to the humbled ; 
that is, to those who bewail themselves in self- 
despair. But man cannot be thoroughly humbled, 

° Super-erogemus.~\ ' To lay out and bestow over and above 
what is due.' Erogo, is properly applied to c public money, 
exacted and issued upon petition and by order ' ; tlience trans- 
ferred to ( private expenditure.' Ut ex ahundantid super, implies, 
that a superabundance of reasons might be alleged, where 
none is necessary. 



64 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part I. till he knows that his salvation lies altogether be- 

yond, and out of the reach of his own strength, 

counsels, desires, will, and works ; depen ding- 
absolutely upon the counsel, will, and work, of 
another ; that is, of God only. For, as long as he 
is persuaded that he can do the least thing pos- 
sible for his own salvation, he continues in self- 
confidence, and does not absolutely despair of 
himself; therefore, he is not humbled before God, 
but goes round about anticipating for himself, or 
hoping, or, at least, wishing to obtain, a place, a 
time, and some performance of his own, by which 
He may at length arrive at salvation. p On the 
other hand, he who has not the shadow of a doubt 
that he is dependent, wholly and solely, upon the 
will of God — this man is complete in his self- 
despair ; this man chooses nothing, q but waits for 
God to work ; this man is next neighbour to that 
grace of God, which shall make him whole. So 
that these things are published for the elects' 
sake ; that they may by these means be humbled 
and brought to know their own nothingness; 
and so may be saved. The rest resist this sort of 
humiliation; nay, they condemn the teaching of 
this self-despair ; they would have some very 
small modicum of power left to themselves. These 
persons, secretly, remain proud, and adversaries 
to the grace of God. This, I say, is one reason 
why these truths should be preached; that the 

p Quo tandem perveniat.'] The contrast is between that direct • 
going to God of the truly humbled sinner ; and the circuitous, 
procrastinative, self- centered expectations of the man who does 
not yet know the whole of his lostness and impotency. 

i Nihil eligitl] In direct contrast with the * sibi praesumit, 
sperat, optat* of the former sentence ; he does not desire or ex- 
pect any particular combination of time and place, in which he 
may perform some great work for himself; but lies passive in 
the hands of God, leaving it to God even to choose for him. 
The expression reminds us of St. Paul's language, under other 
circumstances, which was probably in Luther's mind; "yet 
what I shall choose I wot not." (Phil. i. 22.) 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 65 

godly, being humbled, may come to a real know- SC.XXin. 

ledge 1 ' of the promise of grace, may call upon the 

name of the Lord, and may receive its fulfilment. 

The second reason for this preaching is, that, 
faith being conversant about things which do not 
appear ; to have place for faith, all the things 
believed mast be hidden things. Now, things 
are never hidden further from us, than when the 
contrary to them is set before us by sense and ex- 
perience. Thus God, whilst he makes us alive, 
does it by killing us; whilst he justifies us, does 
it by making us guilty ; whilst he lifts us up to 
heaven, does it by plunging us into hell. As saith 
the Scripture, " The Lord killeth, and maketh 
alive ; he bringeth down to the grave, and 
bringeth up :" (1 Sam. ii. 6.) of which, this is not 
the place to discourse at large. Those, who have 
seen our books, are hackneyed in these topics. 
Thus He hides his eternal mercy and pity under 
eternal wrath ; his righteousness under iniquity. 

This is the highest degree of faith, to believe 
that He is merciful, who saves so few, and con- 
demns so many; to believe Him just, who, of his 
own will, makes us necessary objects of damna- 
tion ; s thus seeming, according to Erasmus's ac- 
count, to be delighted with the torments of the 
wretched, and to deserve hatred, rather than love. 
If then, I could, by any means, comprehend how 
this God is pitiful and just, who shews so great 
wrath and injustice, there would be no need of 
faith ; but now, since this cannot be compre- 
hended, space is given for the exercise of faith, 
whilst these things are preached and published ; 

r Cognoscant.'] e Nosco, vel bene nosco ' ; ' to know a person, 
or thing, not known before j' opposed to ' agnosco.' 

s Necessarib damnabiles.~] "We were so created, have been so 
generated and brought out into manifest existence,, are so con- 
stituted and so situated, that we cannot choose but be just 
objects of God's eternal damnation. This necessity is not 
blind Fate, but arises out of the appointments, arrangements, 
and operations of God's counselled will. 

F 



66 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part i. even as the faith of life is exercised in death/ 

whilst God is in the very act of killing us. Enough 

for the present, in a preface. 

By this proceeding of theirs, those who assert 
and defend these paradoxes, do, in fact, better 
provide against the impiety of the multitude, than 
you do, by your counsel of silence and abstinence; 
which, after all, avails nothing. For, if you either 
believe, or suspect that they are true (being, as 
they are, paradoxes of no small moment), through 
that insatiable desire which men have for scru- 
tinizing secret things (then, most of all, when 
most of all we wish to conceal them), you will 
cause men to have a much greater desire for 
learning whether these paradoxes be true, by 
publishing this caution of yours ; you will have 
set them on fire, no doubt, by your eagerness. 
Thus it will be found, that none of us has ever 
yet given such occasion to the promulgation of 
these things, as you have done by this devout and 
vehement admonition. You would have acted 
more prudently, in quite holding your tongue 
about shunning these paradoxes, if you meant to 
obtain your wish. All is over now : since you do 
not absolutely deny that they are true, they can- 

t Fides vit(E.~] Luther has some allusion possibly to Job.xiii.15. 
e ! Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him." — * Faith 
of eternal life j' the belief that he shall possess that life ; is 
exercised by the dying man, in the moment when God is killing 
him. ' What ! He give thee life, who is now killing thee V Yes ; 
so faith speaks. — Even so, these apparent contradictions to the 
justice and other perfections of God, kill faith ; but it is exer- 
cised in the midst of this death. A fine thought ! But it 
will be seen elsewhere, as I trust, that Luther misconceives 
and overstates this difficulty j through not seeing far enough 
into the counsel and actings of God. There is manifestly no 
injustice in the divine procedure ; when that procedure is 
viewed in its real nature and circumstances, as revealed. Nor 
are we without a manifested end, which the spiritual mind en- 
tirely approves and rejoices in, for that severity, which is so 
hateful to carnal man. But it requires great depth, a^Well as 
distinctness of vision, so to see, as to be verily and indeed satis- 
fied with this mystery of God, by which He is making himself 
known. 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 67 

not hereafter be concealed, but will draw every sc.xxiv. 

body to the investigation of them, by the sus 

picion that they are true.* Either deny, therefore, 
that they are true ; or keep silence first yourself, if 
you mean that others should be silent. 

With respect to the other paradox, that c what- J he P aia - 
ever we do is done by mere necessity, and not by « an human 
Freewill ;' let us look a little into it here, that we works are 
may forbid its being called most pernicious. What I explained 
say at present is, when it shall have been shewn and de- 
that our salvation is placed beyond the reach of fended - 
our own power and wisdom, depending upon the 
work of God only (which I hope to prove fully, 
hereafter, in the body of my discourse), will it not 
clearly follow, that 'whilst God is not present 
as a worker in us, every thing is evil which we 
do ; and that we do necessarily those things which 
are of no profit to our own salvation V For, if 
it is not we> but only God, that works salvation 
in us; we do nothing that is profitable to our 
salvation, whether we will or no, before he works 
in us. When I say necessarily, I do not mean by 
compulsion ; but, as it is said, by a necessity of 
immutability, not of compulsion : that is, when a 
man is destitute of the Spirit of God, he does not 
work evil against his will, through a violence put 
upon him; as if some one should seize him by the 
throat, and twist him round ; just as a thief or 
highwayman is carried, against his will, to the 
gallows ; but he works it of his own accord, and 
with a willing will. But then he cannot, by 
his own strength, lay aside, restrain, or change 
this good pleasure, or will to act ; but. he goes on 
willing and liking : and, even if he should be com- 
pelled from without to do something else by force, 
still his will remains averse within him, and he is 
angry with the person who compels or resists him. 

u Suspicione veritatis.'] Interdum suspicio est ' opinio,' ' co- 
gitatio,' ' conjectural f levis cognitio :' a sort of i surmise' 
that they may be true. 

f2 



68 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

PART I. Now, he would not be angry, if his mind were 
changed, and he were following the force which 
acts upon him willingly. This is what I at pre- 
sent call c a necessity of immutability ' ; that is, 
the will cannot change itself and turn another 
way, but is rather provoked the more to will, by 
being resisted : as is proved by its indignation. 
This would not be, if the will were free, or pos- 
sessed Freewill. Appeal to experience. How 
impracticable those persons are, who cleave to any 
thing with affection. If these persons cease to 
cleave, they so cease through violence, or through 
the greater advantage which they are to derive 
from something else ; they never cease to cleave, 
but by constraint : whereas, if they have no affec- 
tion for the thing, they suffer, what may, to go for- 
wards and be done. 

So, if, on the other hand, God work in us, the 
will which has been changed and softly whispered 
to by the Spirit of God, again wills and acts ac- 
cording to its own sheer lust, proneness, and self- 
accord, not compelledly; so that it cannot be 
changed into another sort of will by any opposite 
excitements, nor overcome or compelled, even by 
the gates of hell ; but goes on willing and liking 
and loving good, just as it before willed and 
liked and loved evil. For, experience again 
proves, how invincible and constant holy men are, 
whilst they are goaded on by force to other ob- 
jects ; insomuch, that they are from thence the 
more provoked to will : just as fire is inflamed, by 
the wind, rather than extinguished ! So that, 
neither in this case is there any freedom in the 
will to turn itself another way, or will some- 
thing else, as the free will might choose ; so 
long as the Spirit and God's grace remain in the 
man. 

In short, if we be under the power of the G od 
of this world, being destitute of the work and 
Spirit of the true God, we are held captive by him 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 69 

at his will ; as Paul says (2 Tim. ii. 26.) ; so that sc.xxiv. 

we cannot will any thing but what he wills. For 

he is himself that strong man armed, who so 
keepeth his palace that those are in peace whom 
he possesses ; lest they should stir up any com- 
motion or thought against him. Otherwise, the 
kingdom of Satan, being divided against itself, 
could not stand ; whereas Christ affirms that it 
does stand. And this will of his we do willingly 
and cordially, agreeably to the nature of our will ,* 
which, if it were compelled, would not be a Will : 
for compulsion is, if I may so speak, more pro- 
perly Non-ivilL* But, if a stronger than he come 
upon him, and, having conquered him, carry us 
off' as a spoil; then, again, we become servants 
and captives through His spirit (which, however, 
is royal liberty), to will and do of our own lust, 
just what He himself wills. Thus, the human will 
is placed, as a sort of packhorse, in the midst of 
two contending parties. If God hath mounted, 
it wills and goes whither God pleases; as the 
Psalmist says, " I am become as a beast of 
burden, and I am ever with thee." y (Psa. ixxiii. 
22, 23.) If Satan hath mounted, it wills and goes 
whither Satan wills. Nor is it in its own choice, 
to which of the two riders it shall run, or to seek 
its rider; but the riders themselves contend for the 
acquisition and possession of it. z 

x Xohuitas.'] ' The negation of will;' a state supposed, 
which is inconsistent with the very existence of the faculty : 
yet this is what the opponents of ' necessity ' would charge its 
assertors with maintaining ; instead of that constrained but 
freely-acted obedience, which is essential to the reality of God's 
being God, and man his moral creature. 

y Our authorized version gives another turn to this passage, 
by dividing the verses differently. But the original text is, 
" I am foolish, and I did not know that I was behemoth before 
thee : and I am always with thee, thou holdest in thy hand my 
right hand." 

z Luther does not really mean what his words might seem to 
imply, that God and Satan are co-equal rivals for the throne of 



70 



PART. I. 

SC. XXV. 

Erasmus 
convicted 
by his own 
conces- 
sion : folly 
and mad- 
ness of 
man's 
claiming 
Freewill. 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

What if I shall have proved from your own 
words, in which you assert Freewill, that there is 
no such thing as Freewill * so as to convict you of 
unwarily denying the conclusion which you endea- 
vour, with so much wariness, to establish ? 
Verily, if I do not succeed in this, I swear to re- 
voke all which I have written against you, from 
the beginning to the end of this book; and to con- 
firm all which your Diatribe either asserts or 
brings into question against me. a 

You represent the power of the free will as 
something very diminutive, and what is altogether 
inefficacious without the grace of God. 

Do not you acknowledge this ? I ask and de- 
mand, then, if the grace of God be wanting, or be 



man's will. Hereafter, it will be found, that lie firmly and ex- 
plicitly maintains the universal and minute sovereignty of God, 
as the doer of all things. His object here is to shew the 
governance under which man's will is ; that it is under the 
power and control of the devil, unless and until the Holy- 
Ghost assume the empire of it : when it is still a subject, 
though the subject of another, and that a freedom-giving 
master. — The truth, however, is, that God has never given 
Freewill (if by Freewill is meant an uncontrolled will) to any 
creature. Man, in his creation state, had the power of choos- 
ing, and refusing, as he has now j and the difference between 
his then state and his now state, consisted in his knowing no- 
thing but good ; and, till the moment of trial, having no temp- 
tation to choose any thing but good. When that temptation was, 
for the first time, presented to him, we know how he met it ; and 
the result was a corrupted faculty, which Satan rides as his 
packhorse. But both his seat and his riding are of the gift, 
and according to the will, of God ; even as his dispossession is, 
when, as and in whom God wills ; not a moment sooner, or 
later. Yet all this agency of God in no wise contradicts the 
reality of a will in man ; God's universal and minute govern- 
ment consisting in his setting, or rather procuring to be set, 
before this faculty, such considerations as shall lead the free- 
agent possessor of it to choose just what God would have him 
choose. 

a Contra me turn asserit, turn qucerit.'] Much of Erasmus's 
argument consisted of dubitative remark ; hinting a fault or 
objection, rather than boldly stating it j and proposing ques- 
tions, rather than affirming certainties. 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 71 

separated from this little something of power; sc.xxv. 

what will it do by itself? b It is inefficacious, you ' 

say, and does nothing that is good. Then it will 
not do what God or his grace would have to be 
done (for we suppose here, that the grace of God 
is in a state of separation from it), and what the 
grace of God doeth not, is not good. It follows, 
therefore, that the free wiil, c without the grace of 
God, is absolutely not free, but is immutably the 
captive and slave of evil; since it cannot, of itself, 
turn to good. Let but this be allowed, and I will 
give you leave to make the power of the free will 
not only that small something, but the power of 
an angel ; a power, if you can, that is truly 
divine. Still, if you shall add this unhappy ap- 
pendage, that it is inefficacious without the grace 
of God, you will instantly take away all power 
from it. — What is an inefficacious power, but no 
power at all ? 

To say, then, that the will is free, and has 
power, but that its power is inefficacious, is what 
the Sophists call c an opposite in the adjunct f 
as if you should say, the will is free, but it is not 
free. It is like saying, fire is cold, and earth is 
hot. Let fire possess even an infernal degree of 
heat; if it be neither warm nor burn, but be cold 
and make cold, I will not call it fire, much less 
hot — unless you choose to consider it as a paint- 
ing or engraving of a fire. If, however, we should 
declare Freewill to be that power, w r hich renders 

b Quid ipsa faciei .] This question is no less than the death- 
blow to Freewill, how modest soever may be the pretensions 
made for her. A false candour and a ruinous forbearance say, 
why attempt to separate what run so closely and so harmo- 
niously together, God's grace and man's exertion r Goodwill 
to man and zeal for God demand the separation : thus only can 
man be made to know himself ; thus only can God's proper 
praise be knowingly and unfeignedlv rendered to him. 

c See above, Sect. ix. note d . Lib. arb. ' The power of will- 
ing,' thus asserted to be free. Vis lib. arb. ( The power of this 
power, &c. &c.' ' Freewill.' 



72 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part i. man a fit substance to be seized by the Spirit and 
imbued with the grace of God, as a being created 
to eternal life, or eternal death ; we should speak 
properly. For we also confess this power (that 
is, this fitness) in the will ; or, as the Sophists 
speak, this disposable quality and passive adapt- 
edness ; which everybody knows to be not im- 
planted in the trees and in the beasts : for God 
hath not created heaven for geese and ganders ; 
as it is said. d 

It stands fixed, even by your own testimony, 
therefore, that we do all things by necessity, and 
nothing by Freewill; so long as the power of the 
free will is nothing, and neither does nor can do 
good, in the absence of grace. Unless you, by a 
new use of terms, should choose to mean c com- 
pletion' by ' efficacy;' intimating, that Freewill 
can begin and can will a good work, though not 
complete it ; which I do not believe. But more of 
this hereafter. 

It follows, from what has been said, that Free- 
will is a title which belongs altogether to God; 
and cannot join with any other being, save the 
Divine Majesty only. For that Divine Majesty, 
as the Psalmist sings, can and does effect all that 
He wills in heaven and in earth. (Psa. cxxxv. 6.) 
But if this title be ascribed to men, you might just 
as well ascribe divinity itself to them ; a sacrilege 
which none can exceed. So that, it was the duty 
of theologians to abstain from this word, when 

d It is necessary to mark with precision the amount of this 
concession. Man has a rational will, (not that his reason is 
seated in his will ; it is a distinct faculty ; and we should say 
more correctly, man has an understanding as well as a will) 
which brutes have not ; and through the means of which he 
may become the subject of spiritual influences. There is a 
spirit in man ; and this spirit may be renewed and invigorated 
by the Holy Ghost, so as to discern spiritual objects, and to 
perform spiritual acts. But how does this affect the reality of 
the natural blindness and impotency of the rational will ? It 
presupposes that reality. 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 73 

they would speak of human power, and to leave it sc. xxv. 

for God only; and, having done this, to remove the ' 

same from out of the mouth and discourse of men, 
claiming; it as a sacred and venerable title for their 
God. e Nay, if they must by all means ascribe 
some power to man, they should teach that it be 
called by some other name than c Freewill;' espe- 
cially, when as we all see and know, the common 
people are miserably seduced and beguiled by 
this term ; hearing in it, and conceiving from it, 
a something: very far different from what theolo- 
gians entertain in their minds, and affirm. For 
' Freewill' is too magnificent, extensive, and 
copious a term; by which the common people 
suppose (as both the force and the nature of the 
word require) that a power is meant, which can 
turn itself freely to either side, and is of such ex- 
tent as not to yield or be subjected to any one. 
Did they know that the fact is otherwise, and 
that scarcely a very small particle of a little spark 
is signified by it, and that this very small particle 
is quite inefficacious by itself; nay, the captive 
and slave of the devil ; it would be strange if they 
did not stone us, as mockers and deceivers, for 
uttering a sound so very far different from our 
meaning : and this too, when it is not even a settled 
and agreed thing amongst us yet, what we really 
do mean ! For " he who speaks deceitfully/'' says 
the w T ise man, u is detestable ;" f especially, if he 
do so in matters of piety, where eternal salvation 
is at stake. 

Seeing, then, that we have lost the substance 

e Nomen.'] He does not mean that God should be called by 
this name ; but that it is a property, which should be to him 
as a name ; c what separates the individual, in the recognition 
of others, frorn all that resemble him.' 

f Odibilis.~] I do not find any words like these, either in the 
Canonical Scriptures, or in the Apocrypha. Some have sup- 
posed Luther to refer to Eccle. xxxvii. 3. " O wicked imagina- 
tion, whence earnest thou in to cover earth with deceit ?" 



74 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART. I. 



which is expressed by so glorious a name, or 
rather have never possessed it (the Pelagians, 
indeed, would have it that we do ; beguiled, as 
you are, by this word) ; why do we so obstinately 
retain an empty name, to the mocking and endan- 
gering of the common people which believe ? 

It is just the same sort of wisdom, as that by 
which kings and princes either retain, or claim 
and vaunt themselves to possess, empty titles of 
kingdoms and countries ; when they are almost 
beggars all the while, and are as far as possible 
from possessing those kingdoms and countries. 
This, however, is a folly that may be borne ; since 
they neither deceive nor beguile any one, but feed 
themselves on vanity, to no profit at all. But in 
the case before us, the soul-danger and the de- 
ception are most injurious. 

Who would not laugh at, or rather hate, that 
unseasonable innovator in the use of words, who, 
contrary to all common usage, should endeavour 
to introduce such a mode of speaking as to call a 
beggar rich; not for having any money of his 
own, but because some king might perchance give 
him his ? Especially, if he should do this, as 
though he were in earnest ; without any figure of 
speech, such as antiphrasis or irony. So, if he 
should call one that is sick unto death a man in 
perfect health ; because some other person, who is 
in health, might possibly make him whole, like him- 
self. So, if he should call a most illiterate idiot a 
very learned man; because some other person 
might possibly give him letters. It is just the same 
sort of thing which is said here — ' man has Free- 
will': yes, forsooth : if God should give him His. 
By such an abuse of speech, any man might boast 
himself of any thing : as for instance, that he is 
Lord of heaven and earth ; that is, if God would 
but give it him. Such, however, is not the lan- 
guage of theologians, but of stage-players and 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 75 

swaggerers.* Our words ought to be plain, pure, sc.xxv. 

and sober : h what Paul calls " sound and irre • 

prehensible." (Tit. ii. 7, 8.) 

If, then, we be not willing to give up the term 
altogether, which would be the safest expedient, 
and most consistent with piety ; still, let us teach 
men to keep good faith in using it only within 
certain limits; by which Freewill shall be con- 
ceded to man, only with respect to such sub- 
stances as are inferior to himself, and not to those 
which are his superiors. In other words, let him 
know that he has, with regard to his faculties and 
possessions, a right of using them — of doing, and 
of forbearing to do — according to his own free 
will ; although this very right be also controlled 
by God's alone free will, wheresoever he sees fit 
to interpose. But in his actings towards God, in 
things pertaining to salvation or damnation, he 
has no free will, but is the captive, the subject, 
and the servant, either of the will of God, or of 
the will of Satan. 1 

8 Quadruplatorum.'] This name was applied, under the Roman 
law, to ' public informers/ who gained a fourth part of the 
accused's goods, or of the fine imposed upon him : or, as others 
say, because they accused persons, who, upon conviction, 
used to be condemned to pay fourfold; as those guilty of ille- 
gal usury, gaming, or the like. But chiefly mercenary and 
false accusers, or litigants, were called by this name ; and also 
those judges who, making themselves parties in a cause, de- 
cided in their own favour. Seneca calls those who, for small 
services, sought great returns, ' quadruplatores beneficiorum 
suorumj' as overrating and exaggerating them. — Luther, 
however, may possibly have no allusion to these customs, but 
use the term, according to its essential meaning, for ' a bouncer' 
or ' exaggerator ;' insinuating, that Erasmus's statements were 
of this kind. But his uniting it with Histrionum leads us 
rather to some notorious class, or community of persons. 

h Propria, pura, sobria.'] Prop. ' plain,' as opposed to° f figu- 
rative y pur. f simple,' as opposed to ' ornamented f sobr. 'tem- 
perate,' as opposed to ' extravagant.' 

1 Luther's distinction here is neither profitable, nor just, 
nor safe : unprofitable, because the amount of the exception is 
small, and hard to be defined ; unjust, because God does, in 
fact, interpose always — " He worketh ali things after the coun- 



SC.XXVI. 



his review 
of Eras- 
mus's 



76 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part i. I have said thus much on the chapters of your 
Preface, which even in themselves contain almost 
the whole of our matter ; more of it, I might say, 
than the body of the book which follows. But the 
concludes sum of these is what might be dispatched by this 
short dilemma. Your preface complains either of 
Pre- the words of God, or of the words of man : if, of the 
face, by re- words of man, it is all written in vain, and I have 
to adfiem^ no concern with it ; if, of the words of God, it is 
ma, and altogether profane. So that, it would have been 
Sortwork more profitable to make this our question ; are the 
of some of words, about which we dispute, God's words or 
ins sharp man ^ s words ? But, perhaps the Proem which 
gs * follows, and the disputation itself, will discuss this 
question. 

What you repeat in the conclusion of your 
preface, does not at all disturb me : as 'that you 
should call my dogmas fables, and useless ;' ' that 
you should say, that we ought rather, after the 
example of Paul, to preach Christ crucified ;' 'that 
wisdom must be taught amongst them that are per- 
fect;' ' that Scripture has its language variously 
attempered to the state of the hearers/ which 
makes you think, that it is left to the prudence 
and charity of the teacher, to preach what he may 
deem suitable to his neighbour. 

All this is absurdity and ignorance ; I also 
preach nothing but Jesus crucified : but " Christ 
crucified" brings all these things along with it; 
and brings, moreover, that very wisdom amongst 
them that are perfect : since there is no other wis- 
dom to be taught amongst Christians, than that 
which is hidden in a mystery and belongs to the 

sel of his own will." " Not a sparrow falleth to the ground 
without your Father j" " He is all (things) in all (things)." 
Unsafe; because, if Freewill be admitted any .where, why not 
every where ? who will yield to our authority, when we say, 
' it is here, but it is not there?" The truth is, man is a free- 
agent, though not a free-wilier, in spiritual things 3 and he is no 
more in temporal things, and in his dealings with the inferior 
creatures. (See Sect. xxiv. note z .) 



ERASMUS'S PREFACE REVIEWED. 77 



perfect ; not to children/ of a Jewish and legal 
people, which glory in works without faith. This 
is Paul's meaning in 1 Cor. ii. unless you would 
have ' the preaching of Christ crucified 9 to mean 
no more than the sounding out of these letters, 
e Christ was crucified/ 

As to those expressions, ' God is angry/ 
c hath fury/ c hateth/ c grieveth/ ' pitieth/ ' re- 
penteth;' when we know that none of these things 
happeneth to God ; 

You are looking for a knot in a bulrush. 1 These 
expressions do not make Scripture obscure, or 
such as must be modulated according to the 
varieties of the hearer; except that some people 
are fond of making obscurities where there are 
none. These are matters of grammar : the sen- 
timent is expressed in figurative words; but 
those, such as even schoolboys understand. How- 
ever, we are talking about doctrines, not about 
figures of speech, in this cause of ours. 

k Pueros.~\ Piter, opposed to perfectos ; ev to?s reXeiocr The 
men ' of full age', opposed to babes. (1 Cor. ii. 6.) 

1 Nodus in scirpo quaritur."] A proverb for stumbling upon 
plain ground. 



SC.XXVI. 



78 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

PART II. 



PART II. 

LUTHER COMMENTS UPON ERASMUS'S PROEM. 



SECTION I. 

Canonical Scriptures to be the standard of appeal. Human autho- 
rity all against Luther — admitted — but depreciated. 

Now, therefore, when about to enter upon your 
disputation, you promise to plead the Canonical 
Scriptures only, since Luther does not hold himself 
bound by the authority of any other writer. 

I am satisfied, and accept your promise : albeit, 
you do not make this promise on the ground of 
judging those other writers unprofitable to the 
cause, but to spare yourself useless labour; for 
you do not quite approve this audacity of mine, 
or whatever else the principle, by which I regulate 
myself in this instance, must be called. 

You are not a little moved, forsooth, by so nu- 
merous a series of the most learned men, who 
have been approved by the common consent of so 
many ages : amongst whom, are to be found men 
of the greatest skill in sacred literature, some of 
the most holy of our Martyrs, and many celebrated 
for their miracles. Add to these a number of 
more modern theologians ; so many Universities, 
Councils, Bishops, Pontiffs. In short, on the one 
side stands erudition, genius, numbers, grandeur, 
high rank, fortitude, sanctification, miracles, and 
what not ? But on my side, only Wickliff and one 
other, Laurentius Valla (howbeit Augustine also, 
whom you pass over, is altogether with me); whose 
weight is nothing, in comparison with the former. 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 79 

There remains none but Luther — a private man, sect. i. 

a man of yesterday — and his friends : who have 

neither so much learning, nor so much genius ; no 
numbers, no grandeur, no sanctification, no mira- 
cles — they cannot even heal a lame horse. They 
make a parade of Scripture; which they never- 
theless consider to be equivocal/ as well as the 
opposite party. They boast of the Spirit also ; 
but they give no signs of possessing it. — And a 
great many other particulars ; which you could spe- 
cify, if you pleased. b — There is nothing on our 
side, therefore, but what the wolf acknowledged 
in the devoured nightingale ; ' You are a voice/ 
said he, c and nothing else/ ' They talk/ you 
say; ' and, for this only, expect to be believed/ 

I confess, my Erasmus, that you are not with- 
out good reason moved by all these things. I 
was so much affected by them myself for more 
than ten years, that I think no other person was 
ever equally harassed by such conflicts : and it 
was utterly incredible to me, that this Troy of 
mine, which, for so long a time, and during so 
many wars, had proved itself to be invincible, 
could ever be taken. Nay, I call God for a re- 
cord upon my soul, that I should have continued 
in my opinion, and should, to this day, be still 
impressed with the same feelings, if it were not 
that the goadings of my own conscience, and 
the evidence of facts, constrain me to judge dif- 
ferently. You can have no difficulty in conceiving, 
that, although my heart be not a heart of stone, 
yet if it were one, it might have melted in the 
struggle and collision with such waves and tides 
as I brought upon myself, by daring to do an act, 

a Quam tamen dubiam habent.~\ The pretended ambiguity of 
Scripture is a point on which Erasmus laid great stress, and 
which Luther, hereafter, most powerfully and satisfactorily 
repels. 

b A vaunting insinuation expressed in the words of iEneas 
(Mn. iv. 333, 334) ; by which Erasmus would lead his reader 
to understand, that he had a great deal still behind. 



80 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part II. which would, as I perceived, cause all the autho- 

rity of these persons whom you have recounted, 

to come down, with all the violence of a deluge, 
upon my own head. 

But this is not the place for me to construct a 
history of my life, or of my works ; nor have I taken 
this book in hand with the design of commending 
myself, but that I might extol the grace of God. 
What sort of a man I am, and with what spirit 
and design I have been hurried into these trans- 
actions, I commit d to that Being, who knows that 
all these things have been effected, not by my own 
Freewill, but by His : howbeit, even the world 
itself ought to have become sensible of this, long 
ago. It is evidently a very invidious situation 
into which you throw me, by this exordium of 
yours : from which it is not easy for me to extri- 
cate myself, without trumpeting my own praises, 
and censuring so many of the Fathers. But I shall 
be short. In erudition, genius, numbers, autho- 
rity, and every thing else, I allow the cause to be 
tried at your judgment-seat, and acknowledge 
myself the inferior. 6 

c Luther claims respect, here, for three properties of his 
mind and conduct ; conscientiousness, scrupulous investiga- 
tion of truth, and full consciousnesss of the evil he was encoun- 
tering. Not only was his light poured in very gradually, and 
admitted very cautiously, but, from first to last, he would have 
been often glad to hold his tongue. When he spoke, or wrote, 
it was because God's word was in his heart as a burning fire 
shut up in his bones, and he was weary with forbearing, and 
could not stay. (Jer. xx. 9.) 

d Commendo.'] Properly, to c commit as a deposit into the 
hands of a trustee.' I leave my character and my conduct, in 
these particulars, with my God. 

e Luther considers himself as arrayed, in opposition to the 
Fathers, before the judgment-seat of Erasmus. His defence 
must consist of self-praise and abuse of the Fathers. He de- 
clines making such a defence, and cuts the matter short by 
acknowledging his inferiority ; and, that in all the points of 
competition which Erasmus had introduced. — Dr. Milner 
understands him to reserve three ; Viz. the Spirit, miracles, 
sanctification. But this does not appear to be the fair con- 
struction and import of the original text. If I collect the 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 81 

But if I should turn round npon my judge, and SECT. I. 

propose these three questions to you, what is 

the manifestation of the Spirit ? what are Mira- 
cles? what is Sanctification ? f you would be 

sense aright, he makes two concessions: etiam ie judice ; '1 
will allow the cause to be tried even at your judgment-seat ;' 
omnibus aliis ; c I reserve not a single point of superiority for 
myself.' (Did Luther indeed mean^to contest the palm on any 
of these three grounds of excellency?) — But then he abates the 
force of his concessions, by remarking, with respect to those 
three distinctions which alone are of any value in the number 
and variety claimed for his adversaries, that, in the first place, 
Erasmus could not define them ; and, in the next, he could not 
prove concerning any individual of his vaunted host, that he 
possessed them. (See Miln. Ecclesi. Hist. vol. iv. part ii. 
p. S63.) 

It may be well, just to notice the order, in which Luther 
hence proceeds, in his animadversions upon Erasmus's Proem. 

1. You cannot prove that they possessed these properties. 

2. If they had them, they did not come at them by Freewill. 

3. Show ye the same. 4. At least define the power. 5. How ab- 
surd your conduct with respect to the Fathers. 6. Some desul- 
tory objections — such as, c strange that God should have 
tolerated such errors in his church'; ' Scripture is not clear' — 
met and repelled. 7« Erasmus reduced to a dilemma. 

f By ' manifestation of the Spirit,' Luther (with reference to 
Erasmus's taunt, e quem nusquam ostendunt') means, ' how 
men are to prove that they have the Spirit dwelling and walk- 
ing in them.' By f miracles', how the reality or falsehood of 
affirmed miracles is to be proved. By c sanctification', the 
state of a saint ; that is, of one effectually called by the Holy 
Ghost : this effectual calling, or separation of the Spirit, being that 
act by which the eternally separated of the Father (Jude ver. 1.) 
are drawn into a realized and recognised union with the sepa- 
rated one, even the Lord Jesus Christ ; in whom (Heb. ii. 11.), 
according to eternal purpose and covenant, they are separated to 
God. So that ' separation from and unto' constitutes the essence 
of sanctification ; into which the Scripture use of the term is 
every where resolvable : not a gradual work, the result of 
repeated actions of the Spirit upon the substance of the natural 
soul, as human authors fondly teach -, but one complete and 
final operation, by which the natural soul (Y^x^) * s made a 
spiritual soul (jvevfxa) j as holy, with respect to its own sub- 
stance, as it ever will be in eternity. (See 1 Pet. i. 2, 22, 23. 
2 Thess. ii. 13. John vi. 37, 44, 63, 64. See also the kXtjto?* 
07/0^9, ' called to be saints,' of the epistolary inscriptions.) 
Luther very properly distinguishes this ' sanctimonia,' ' sanc- 
tum esse vel fuisse', from the ' habere spiritum j' that is, from 
the presence of the Holy Ghost with, and his consequent actings 
in and by, the renewed Spirit. 

G 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART II. 



SECT. II. 

The excel- 
lencies of 
the Fa- 
thers were 
not of or 
for Free- 
will. 



found too inexpert and too ignorant (so far as I 
know you from your letters and from your books) 
to answer me one syllable. Or, if I should 
go on, and demand of you, which of all these 
heroes, of whom you make your boast, you could 
certainly show to have been, or to be sanctified, 
or to have had the Spirit, or to have displayed 
real miracles j my conviction is, that you would 
have to work very hard, and all in vain. g Much 
that you say is borrowed from common use and 
public discourse ; h which loses more than you sup- 
pose of its credit and authority, when summoned to 
the bar of conscience. True is the proverb, ' Many 
pass for saints on earth, whose souls are in hell/ 

But let us grant you, if you please, that even 
all of them were sanctified, had the Spirit, and 
wrought miracles (a concession which you do not 
ask) ; tell me, was any one of them sanctified, did 
any one of them receive the Spirit and work mira- 
cles, in the name or by the power of Freewill; or, 
to confirm the doctrine of Freewill ? God forbid, 
you will say : all these things were done in the 
name and by the power of Jesus Christ ; and in 
support of the doctrine of Christ. Why, then, 
do you adduce their sancti fixation, their having 
the Spirit, and their miracles, in support of the 
doctrine of Freewill; for which they were not 
given and wrought? Their miracles, therefore, 
their having the Spirit, and their sanctification, 
are all ours; who preach Jesus Christ, in oppo- 
sition to the powers and works of men. Now, 
what wonder is it, if those men (holy, spiritual, 
and workers of miracles as they were) being 
every now and then forestalled by the flesh, have 
spoken and have acted, according to the flesh? 
what happened more than once to the Apostles 

& Multum sed frustrd sudatorum.] Horace's ' sudet multilm 
frustraque laboret :' implying great and inefficacious toil. 

h Ex usu et publicis sermonibus .] Us. ( men's saying what is 
usually said, what others say.' Publ. serm. 'what men talk in 
public ; ' contrasted with private meditation and the secret 
testimony of their own hearts. 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 83 

themselves, when living under the immediate eye sect, hi- 

of Christ. For you do not deny, but even assert, -— 

that Freewill is not a matter of the Spirit, or of 
Christ, but a mere human affair ; so that the Spirit, 
which was promised, that he might glorify Christ, 
cannot possibly preach Freewill. If, therefore, the 
Fathers have sometimes preached Freewill; as- 
suredly they have spoken by the flesh, as men, and 
not by the Spirit of God: much less have they 
wrought miracles, that they might support it. So 
that your allegation respecting the Fathers, as 
having been sanctified, had the Spirit, and wrought 
miracles, is inapplicable : since it is not Freewill, 
but the dogma of Jesus Christ i as opposed to that 
of Freewill, which is proved thereby. 

But come now, ye that are on the side of Free- Luther 
will, and assert that a dogma of this sort is true ; challenges 
that is, has come from the Spirit of God ; still, shew ef- 
still I say, manifest the Spirit, publish your mira- 6 ctso f H . 
cles, display your sanctification. Assuredly you, thTtime* 
who assert, owe these things to us who deny, particular 
The Spirit, sanctification, miracles, ought not to cfeTwMch 
be demanded of us who deny ; of you who assert, he has se- 
they ought. Since a negative advances nothing, le ^f out 
is nothing, is not bound to prove any thing, nor mus'scata- 
ought to be proved itself. An affirmative ought lo § ue - 
to be proved. You affirm the power of Freewill ; 
a human substance. But no miracle has ever yet 
been seen, or heard of, as performed by God, for 
any dogma in support of a human thing; but only 
for one in support of a divine thing. We have it 
in charge to receive no dogma whatsoever, which 
has not been first proved by divine attestations. 
(Deut.xviii. 15 — 22.) Moreover, the Scripture calls 
man vanity and a lie ; k which is in effect saying, 

1 Jesu Christi dogma.'] Not f a dogma taught by Jesus 
Christ ;' but a ' dogma of which He is the subject:' 'the 
truth as it is in Jesus ;' which is directly opposite to this fancy 
of Freewill. 

k Ps. xxxix. 5. lxii. 9. 

g2 



84 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part II. that all human things are vanities and lies. Come 
■ then ; come, I say, and prove your dogma in sup- 
port of a human vanity and lie, to be true. 
Where is now your manifestation of the Spirit ? 
where, your sanctification ? where, your mira- 
cles ? — I see talents, erudition, and authority — 
but God hath given these to the Gentiles also. 

And yet, it is not great miracles to which we 
will compel you; such as that of healing a lame 
horse; 1 lest you should complain of a carnal age : m 
howbeit, God is wont to confirm his doctrines by 
miracles, without any regard to the carnality of the 
age. He is not moved by the merits or demerits 
of a carnal age, but by mere pity and grace ; and 
by a love of establishing souls in solid truth, unto 
His glory . n You are at liberty to work a miracle 
as small as you please. Nay, by way of pro- 
voking your Baal to exertion, I jeer you; and 
challenge you to create even a single frog, in the 
name and by the power of Freewill : of which 
the impious Gentile magicians in Egypt were 
enabled to create many. For I will not put you 
to the trouble of creating lice ; which they also 
were not able to bring forth. 1 will set you a still 
lighter task : take but a single gnat or louse (since 
you tempt and mock my God with your fleer about 
healing a lame horse) ; and if, with the whole 
united force, and the whole conspiring efforts, both 
of your God and of yourselves, you shall be able 
to kill him — in the name and by the power of Free- 
will — you shall be proclaimed conquerors ; and it 

1 Equum claudum sanare.~\ Erasmus's burlesque illustration 
of their want of miracles. Luther plays with it : ' we will not 
call you to practise upon so huge an animal as an horse ; we 
will be content with something less.' 

m Alluding- to the Lord's, " a wicked and adulterous genera- 
tion seeketh after a sign." Matt. xvi. 4. xii. 39. 

n Luther confines the design of God in his miracles to the 
gracious object of them : but does not God also design, by 
these seals set upon his truth, to convict and render inexcusa- 
ble the reprobate and ungodly ? 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 85 

shall be admitted that you have maintained your sect. HI. 
cause, and we will come presently and adore this — — " 
God of yours — the marvellous slayer of a louse ! 
Not that I deny your having the power even to 
remove mountains : but because it is one thing to 
have it asserted, that some act has been per- 
formed by the power of Freewill ; and another, to 
have it proved. 

What I have said of miracles, I say also of 
sanctification. If, in so great a series of ages and 
of men, and of all things which you have named, 
you shall be able to show a single work (let it be 
but the lifting up of a straw from the ground) ; or a 
single word (let it be but the syllable ' my'); or a 
single thought (let it be but the feeblest sigh) — 
proceeding from Freewill — by which they have 
either applied themselves to grace, or earned the 
Spirit, or obtained pardon of sin, or have nego- 
ciated any thing (let it be as diminutive as you 
please — we will not talk about their sanctification) 
with God; be ye again the victors, and we the van- 
quished ! But then it must be through the power 
and in the name of Freewill ! For, as to what 
is done in men through the power of a divine 
creation, it has Scripture testimonies in abun- 
dance. You certainly ought to exhibit some work 
of this kind, if you would not make yourselves 
ridiculous teachers, by spreading dogmas through- , 

out the world, with all this superciliousness and 
authority, about a thing of which you produce no 
record. For those shall be called dreams, which 
produce no result whatsoever (the most disgrace- 
ful thing imaginable) to persons of so great con- 
sequence, living through such a series of ages, 
men of the greatest erudition and sanctity, who 
have also the power of working miracles. The 
issue will be, that we prefer the Stoics before you ; 
who, although they too described a wise man such 
as they never saw, still endeavoured to exhibit the 
likeness of some part of him in their own character. 



86 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part ii. But you have absolutely nothing to show; not 

even the shadow of your dogma. 

So again, with respect to the Spirit: if, out of 
all the assertors of Freewill, you can show me one, 
who hath possessed even so small a degree of 
strength of mind, or of good feeling, as might 
enable him to despise a single farthing, to forego 
a single cast of the die, or to forgive a single word 
or letter of injury (I will not talk of despising 
wealth, life, and fame), in the name and through 
the power of Freewill ; take the palm again, and 
I will be content to be sold as your captive. You 
ought at least to show us this, after all your big 
swelling words p in boast of Freewill ; else, you 
will again seem to be either wrangling about 
goats' wool, or, like the noble Argian, seeing 
plays in an empty theatre. q 
sect. iv. But, in contradiction to your statement, I shall 

easily shew you that holy men, such as you vaunt 

The saints yourself to possess, as often as they come to pray 
disdaim y or plead with God, approach him in an utter for- 
Freewiii, getfulness of their own Freewill; despairing of 



o 



Sub hastam libenter ikimus.~\ The custom of selling under 
the spear was derived from the sales of booty taken in war ; 
in which the spear was set up, and the spoil sold under it, to 
denote whence the property had been obtained. So constant, 
however, was the use of the spear in auctions, that ' hasta' is 
sometimes put absolutely for the auction itself; and f sub 
hasta venire' corresponds to our ' coming under the hammer." 
Luther applies it here, in agreement with its original use ; 
f he will freely come to the spear, that he may be sold as a 
part of Erasmus's spoil.' 

p Buccd verborum.'} ' The puffed or distended cheek' is used 
to express ' anger,' c pride,' or ' boastfulness.' Horace has 
* iratus buccas inflet ;' Persius, * scloppo tumidas intendis rum- 
pere buccas.' 

1 Land caprind, vacuo theatre:] The first allusion (Hor. 1. 
Epist. xviii. 15.) charges him with 'contentious trifling;' 
like the man who quarrels with his friend about goats' hair, 
whether it should be called Wool or bristles ; ' fighting for 
straws •' the second — ' fuit haud ignobilis Argis'— (Hor. 2. 
Epist. ii. 128 — 130, &c.) with indulging ' a harmless but disor- 
dered fancy.' — If you cannot show us any moral effects produced 
by it, Freewill must be either a thing of no value,, or an illusion. 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 87 

themselves, and imploring nothing but pure grace sect. v. 

only; which they acknowledge to be far removed • 

from their own deservings. Such a man does !^ we ^ e a r 
Augustine frequently prove himself to have been; dispute 
such did Bernard, when, in his dying-hour, he about it. 
said, < I have lost my time, for I have lived abo- 
minably/' I do not see any power which applies 
itself for grace alleged in these expressions, but 
all the power which a man has, accused of abso- 
lutely turning away from it. 3 And yet, these self- 
same holy men sometimes spoke a different lan- 
guage about Freewill, in their disputations. Just 
what happens, as I perceive, to all mankind : they 
are one sort of people, whilst intent upon words 
and reasonings; and another, when feeling and 
acting. In the former instance, they speak a lan- 
guage which differs from their previous feelings ; 
in the latter, their feelings contradict their pre- 
vious language. But men are to be measured by 
their feelings, rather than their discourse; whether 
they be pious, or impious. 

But we give you still more : we do not demand Luther de- 
miracles, the Spirit, sanctification ; we return to jjjj^jjj^ 
the dogma itself : demanding only, that you f Free- 
shall at least shew us, what work, what word, will; asp* 
what thought, this power of the free will stirs up, c f its parts, 
or attempts to perform, in order that it may apply powers, 
itself to grace. It is not enough to say, ' there is ^dS?" 
a power/ ' there is a power/ 6 there is a certain dents. 
power, I say, in the free will / for what is easier 
than to say this ? Nor is this worthy of those most 
learned and most holy men, who have been ap- 
proved by so many ages. c The babe must be 
named/ as the German proverb has it. You must 
define what that power is, what it does, what it suf- 
fers, what are its accidents. For example ; speak- 
ing as one most dull of apprehension, I would ask, 

r Perdite.'] ' More perditi hominis ; flagitiose/ ' nequiter, cor- 
rupted 

3 Non nisi aversa fueritJ] Opposed to ' ad gratiam sese appli- 
cet / aversation and disgust,, instead of desire and seeking. 



88 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part II. is it the office of this power either, to pray, or to 
■ fast, or to labour, or to keep under the body, or 

to give alms, or to do any thing else of this kind, 
or does it make any attempt at these things ? If 
it be a power, it will be trying to achieve some- 
thing. But here, you are more dumb than the 
Seriphian frogs, and fishes. 1 

And how is it possible that you should define 
it, when, according to your own testimony, you 
are still uncertain what the power itself is ; at 
variance with each other, and each of you incon- 
sistent with himself? What will become of the 
definition, when the thing defined means one 
thing in one place, and another in another? 

But let it be granted, that, since the time of 
Plato, there has, at length, been some sort of 
agreement amongst you, about the power itself: 
let it further be defined, as its office, that it prays, 
or fasts, or does something of this sort, which still, 
perhaps, lies concealed in the maze of Plato's 
6 Ideas/ U Who shall assure us, that the dogma is 
true, that it is well-pleasing to God, and that we 
are safe in maintaining it ? x Especially, when you 
confess yourselves that it is a human thing, which 
has not the testimony of the Spirit; for that it 

1 Seriphus was an island in the iEgean sea -, one of the Spo- 
rades ; where, according to iElian, the frogs never croaked ; 
but, when removed to another place, became more noisy and 
clamorous than others. The latter part of the story, how- 
ever, is differently told, and in a manner more consistent with 
the proverb ; that they retained their dumbness, when trans- 
ferred and mingled with others. Hence the saying, Bdrpaxo?' 
ck 2ep0a, for a silent man, who can neither speak, nor sing. 

u Platonis Ideis.] A term used by Plato to denote the first 
forms of things ; the sort of mental draught, according to 
which nature (in the language of a heathen philosopher — and 
would it were only professed heathens who speak so !) has 
framed all her substances. ' Plato ideas vocat ex quibus omnia 
quaecunque videmus fiunt, et ad quas omnia formantur.' 

x Nosque tutb rectum agere, i. e. in rectum.] More literally, 
' safe in going straight forwards.' Quasi ( in rectum agere 
iter.' 

" Iterque 
Non agit in rectum." ..." in rectum exire catervas." 

LUCAN. 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 89 

was bandied by the philosophers, and had a sect. v. 
being in the world, before Christ came, and ■ 

before the Spirit was sent from heaven. Thus it 
is made most certain, that this dogma was not 
sent from heaven, but had been born long before, 
out of the earth : so that a great deal of testimony- 
is necessary, to confirm it as certain and true. 

Let us, then, be private men and few, whilst 
you are even publicans y and a multitude ; let us 
be barbarians, and you most learned ; let us be 
stupid, and you most ingenious ; us, men of yes- 
terday, and you older than Deucalion ; us, men of 
no acceptance ; you, men who have received the 
approbation of ages ; us, in fine, sinners, carnal, 
sottish ; z you, men fitted to excite fear in the very 
devils, by your sanctity, the Spirit which is in you, 
and your miracles. Give us, at least, the right of 
Turks and Jews ; that of demanding a reason for 
your dogma, agreeably to what your great patron 
St. Peter a has commanded you. We ask this, 
however, with the greatest modesty ; inasmuch 

y Publicani.'] Not without meaning used here instead of 
publici, as opposed to privati. The publicans were govern- 
ment-officers, employed in collecting the public revenues 5 
which they contracted for at a price, and lived upon the pro- 
duce. They were chiefly of the equestrian order, and held in 
honour. ' Erant publicani equites Romani, qui tributa et pub- 
lica vectigalia questus sui causa conducebant.' ' Publicani 
autem, sunt, qui publico fruuntur.' f Flos equitum Roma- 
norum, ornamentum civitatis, firmamentum reipub. Publica- 
norum ordine continetur.' — Luther uses the name, if I under- 
stand him aright, equivocally. Whilst he gives them the glory 
of publicity, he hints at their support being derived from the 
Jiscus, and the infamous celebrity which they had acquired by 
their exactions. In fact, what were the barefaced traffickers 
in Indulgences, such as Tetzel and others, but publicans of 
the worst stamp ? — I do not find any authority for the word 
publicanus, but as referred to this office. 

z Socordcs.'] Quasi sine corde. l Not only sinful, instead of 
sanctified -, and carnal, instead of having the Spirit ; but abso- 
lutely without natural intellect and feeling. 

a Referring to 1 Pet. iii. 15. (( And be ready always to give 
an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope 
that is in you, with meekness and fear." Petrus vester. ( Your 
tutelar saint and pretended founder.' 



90 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part ii. as we do not demand that it be proved to us, by 

sanctification, by the Spirit, and by miracles, as we 

might do according to your own law ; which is, to 
demand these things of others. Nay, we even 
allow you not to give us any instance of thought, 
word, or deed in your dogma; but to teach us the 
simple, naked proposition. Declare the dogma 
itself, at least ; what you wish to be understood 
by it ; what is its form. b 

If you will not, or cannot give us an example 
of it, let us at least try to give you one. Imitate 
the Pope and his cardinals at least, who say, 
' Do what we say, but do not according to our 
works/ Even so, do ye also say what work that 
power requires to be performed by its subjects, 
and we will apply ourselves to it ; leaving you to 
yourselves. What ! shall we not even gain this from 
you ? The more you exceed us in numbers, the 
more ancient you are, the greater, the better in all 
respects than we,* by so much the more disgrace- 
ful is it to you, that you are not able to prove 
your dogma — by the miracle of even slaying a 
louse, or by any very small affection of the Spirit, 
or by any very small work of holiness — to us, who 
are a mere nothing in your presence, and are 
wishing to learn and perform your dogma. 
Nay, you are not even able to exemplify it in a 
single deed or word. More than this, you are not 
even able to declare the very form or meaning of 
the dogma (such a thing as never was heard of), 
that we, at least, might imitate it. Delightful 
teachers of Freewill ! What are ye now, but a 
voice, and nothing else? Who are those now, 
Erasmus, that make boast of the Spirit, and show 

b Qudformd.~\ In a dialectic sense. * A dialecticis sumitur 
pro specie subjecta generi.' ' Formae sunt, in quas genus 
dividitur.' - Specificate/ or f define it ; i. e. enumerate and 
combine all the several ideas contained in it. — We do not ask 
miracles, &c. j we do not even ask an example, by way of 
illustrating it ; but we do require a clear and explicit affirma- 
tion of what you mean $ a full and precise description of the 
supposed substance. 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 91 

nothing of it ? that only speak, and forthwith sect. v. 

expect to be believed. Are not these admired 

ones of yours, the men who do all this ; though so 
extolled to the skies ? who do not even speak, 
and yet make such great boasts and demands? 

We ask it as a favour, therefore, of yourself 
and of your party, my Erasmus, that you w r ould 
at least grant to us, that, being terrified with the 
danger incurred by our conscience, we may be 
allowed to indulge our fears, or at least to defer 
our assent to a dogma, which you perceive your- 
self to be nothing but an empty word, and the 
sounding of so many syllables ; (to wit, ( There is 
such a thing as Freewill ;' c there is such a thing 
as Freewill ;*) if you should even have attained the 
summit of your object, and all your positions 
should have been proved and allowed. Then, 
again, it is still uncertain, even amidst your own 
party, whether this mere word has a being or not ; 
since they are at variance one with another, and 
not agreed each with himself. It is a most unfair 
thing ; nay, the most wretched thing imaginable, 
that the consciences of those whom Christ hath 
redeemed with his own blood, should be harassed 
with the mere phantom of a single petty word, 
and that word of doubtful existence. Yet, if we 
do not suffer ourselves to be thus harassed, we 
are accused of an unheard of pride, for having 
despised so many Fathers, of so many ages, who 
have asserted the doctrine of Freewill ; when the 
truth is, that they have laid down no distinct pro- 
positions at all concerning Freewill, as you per- 
ceive from what has been said; and the dogma of 
Freewill is set up under the cover of their name, 
whilst its maintainers are unable to exhibit either 

c Qui ne dicitis quidem."] * You are not even the nightingale.* 
(See above, Sect, i.) They had voice enough, when speaking 
for themselves $ but none with which to answer the questions 
and demands of their opponents. 



92 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART II. 



SECT. VI. 

Erasmus's 
advice 
turned 
against 
himself: 
presump- 
tion, cru- 
elty, want 
of discern- 
ment, 
charged 
upon him. 



its species, or its name/ It is thus, that they have 
contrived to delude the world with a lying word! 6 
And here, Erasmus, I summon your own and 
not another's counsel f to my aid; who persuadest 
us above, that we ought to desist from questions 
of this kind, and rather to teach Christ crucified, 
and such things as may suffice for christian piety. 
Such has now, for a long time, been the nature of 
our questions and discussions. For what else are 
we aiming at, but that the simplicity and purity of 
Christ's doctrine may prevail; and that those 
dogmas, which have been invented and introduced 
by men, may be abandoned and disregarded. 
But, whilst you give us this advice, you do not 
act it; but just the contrary. You write Diatribes, 
you celebrate the decrees of Popes, you boast in 
the authority of men, and try all means of hurry- 
ing us into those matters which are strangers and 
aliens from the holy Scriptures, and of agitating 
unnecessary topics; in order that we may corrupt 
and confound the simplicity and genuineness of 
christian piety with the additions of men. Hence 
we readily perceive, that you have not given us 
this counsel from your heart ; and that you do 

d Neque speciem neque nomen.~\ e They can neither define it, 
nor find an appropriate name by which to express it.' 

e Mendaci vocabulo.~] Though they cannot find a name for it, 
they have got a word for it : but that word is a liar ; for it pro- 
claims the will to be free, which is really in bondage. Logi- 
cians distinguish f vocabulum ' from ' nomen :' the former is 
arbitrary and general j the latter descriptive and precise. What 
you cannot name (according to this distinction) you may speak 
of. ' Differunt nomina et vocabula ; quia nomina finita sunt et 
significant res proprias ; vocabula autem infinita, et res com- 
munes designant.' 

f Appellamus.'] A forensic expression, applied to advocate, 
witnesses, and judge; but to each,, in consistency with its pri- 
mary meaning of ' addressing a person by name j' irpoacKyopevw 
Luther would avail himself of Erasmus's own testimony and 
advice, now that he has shewn the dogma of Freewill to be this 
unauthorized and unprofitable one. Erasmus had recommended 
that all such should be suppressed. 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 93 

not write any thing seriously, but trust to the vain sect. vi. 

and puerile ornaments of your language,? as that 

which may enable you to lead the world whither- 
soever you please. Meanwhile you, in point of 
fact, lead it no whither ; for you utter nothing but 
sheer contradictions throughout the whole, and in 
every part : so that you would be most fitly cha- 
racterised by the man who should call you Pro- 
teus, or Vertumnus 11 himself ; or who should 
accost you with the words of Christ, and say, 
"Physician, heal thyself!" It is disgraceful to 
the teacher, when the fault, which he reproves, 
reproves himself. 1 

Until you shall have proved your affirmative, 
therefore, we persist in our negative ; and venture 
to make it our boast at the tribunal of our judge 
(even though that judge should be the whole 
band of holy men, which you vaunt yourself as 
having all on your side ; or, rather, should be 
the whole world) ; that we do not, and ought 
not to admit a dogma, which is really nothing, 
and of which it cannot be shewn, with certainty, 
what it is. We will, moreover, charge you with 
an incredible degree of presumption, or insanity, 
in demanding that this dogma should be admitted 
by us ; without any reason, except that it pleases 
your High Mightinesses — who are so many, so 
great, and so ancient — to assert the being of a 

s Inanibus bullis verborum.~\ ' Prettinesses of style.' * Bulla * 
is properly ' a bubble, made by the boiling of water,' and is 
thence applied to divers ornaments of dress ; particularly to 
one in the shape of a heart, worn by the Roman youth : of 
which the quality depended upon their rank, or degree of nobi- 
lity. This they dedicated to the Lares, when they took the 
manly gown. 

h Vertumnus had, amongst the Latins, the same property of 
assuming all shapes, which Proteus had amongst the Greeks. 

1 Luther does not tell us to whom he is indebted for this 
metrical aphorism. — Erasmus had played the physician, pre- 
scribing silence with respect to some dogmas ; his own is 
shewn to be one of them. 



94 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part ii. thing, which you confess yourselves to be a mere 
nothing. Is it really a conduct worthy of chris- 
tian teachers, to delude the poor wretched common 
people, in the matter of piety, with a mere no- 
thing ; as though it were a something of great 
moment to their salvation ! Where is now that 
sharpness of Grecian wit, which heretofore in- 
vented lies, having at least some shew of beauty; 
but on this subject utters only naked and undis- 
guised falsehoods ? Where is now that Latin 
industry, not inferior to Grecian, which in this 
instance so beguiles, and is beguiled, with the 
vainest of words ? k But thus it happens to un- 
wary, or designing, readers of books : they make 
those dogmas of the Fathers and of the Saints which 
are the offspring of their- infirmity, to be all of the 
highest authority ; the fault not being that of the 
authors, but of the readers. Just as if a man, 
leaning on the sanctity and authority of St. Peter, 
should contend that all which Peter ever said 
is true ; including even that saying in Matt. xvi. 
22. by which, through infirmity of the flesh, he 
persuaded Christ not to suffer ; or that saying, by 
which he commanded Christ to depart from him 
out of the ship (Luke v. 8.) $ and many others, for 
which he is reproved by Christ himself. 
sec. vn. Men of this sort are like those, who, by way of 
~~; — ; — sneering at the Gospel, go chattering that all is 
donTtT not true which is in the Gospel ; and lay hold of 
the Fa- that word (John viii. 48.) where the Jews say to 
thers, by Christ, " Say we not well that thou art a Sama- 
their bad ritan, and hast a devil ?" or that, " He is guilty 

k Erasmus had bestowed these and some other commenda- 
tions upon the Greek and Latin Fathers, to the disparagement of 
the Reformers, as making for his side in the argument. Luther 
asks, whether what they had said on Freewill was a specimen 
of this richness of invention, and laboriousness of investigation 
and expression ? Here they had not excelled, any more than 
Erasmus himself; to whom Luther was not backward to 
ascribe the praise of resembling and even equalling them. 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 95 

of death;" or that "We have found this fellow sec. vh. 

subverting our nation, and forbidding to give 

tribute unto Cassar." The assertors of Freewill sayings 
do just the same thing (with a different design, it ™ s ££ 
is true ; and not willingly, but through blindness good. 
and ignorance), when they lay hold on what the 
Fathers, having fallen through infirmity of the 
flesh, savin support of Freewill; and oppose it to 
what the same Fathers have, in the strength of the 
Spirit, said elsewhere against it : after which, 
they go on presently to make the better give place 
to the worse. Thus it comes to pass, that they 
give authority to the worse sayings, because they 
make for the judgment of their flesh; and with- 
draw it from the better, because they make against 
that judgment. 

Why do we not rather choose the better? 
Many such sayings are in the works of the 
Fathers. To give you an instance : what saying can 
be more carnal ; nay, what saying can be more im- 
pious, more sacrilegious, and more blasphemous ; 
than that wonted one of Jerome's ? 'Virginity fills 
heaven, and marriage earth/ As if earth, and 
not heaven, were the due of those patriarchs, 
apostles, and private Christians, who have married 
wives ; or heaven were the due of vestal virgins 
amongst the heathens, without Christ ! Yet the 
Sophists collect these, and like sayings, from the 
Fathers; maintaining a contest of numbers, rather 
than of judgment, to get the sanction of authority 
for them. Just like that stupid fellow, Faber of 
Constance, 1 who presented his Margaritum (more 
properly called his stable of Augeas) lately to the 

1 John Faber, a native of Suabia j "who, from one of his works 
against the Reformers, probably this very work, was called 
* The Mallet of the Heretics.' He was advanced to the see of 
Vienna in 1531, and died there in 1542. His elevation was 
supposed to have been the fruit of his zeal against Luther. 
He entitled it his Pearl : but Luther would rather call it his 
Dunghill; with allusion to Hercules's famous labour of remov- 
ing the long accumulated filth of 3000 oxen. 



96 

PART II. 

SEC. VIII. 

Objection, 
' that God 
should 
have dis- 
guised the 
error 
of his 
Church/ 
answered. 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

public, that the pious and learned might have 
their nauseating and vomiting draught. 

In answer to what you say, ' that it is incre- 
dible that God should have disguised m the error of 
his Church for so many ages, and should not have 
revealed to any of his saints what we maintain to 
be the very head of evangelical doctrine ;' I reply : 

First, that we do not say that this error has been 
tolerated by God in his Church, or in any saint of 
His. For, the Church is governed by the Spirit of 
God ; the saints are led by the Spirit of God 
(Rom. viii. 14.); and Christ remains with his 
Church even unto the end of the world (Matt. 
xxviii. 20.) ; and the Church of God is the pillar 
and ground of the truth." (1 Tim. iii. 15.) These 
things, I say, we know. For thus speaks even 
our common creed ; ' I believe in the holy Catholic 
Church :' so that it is impossible for her to err in 
the least article. And if we should even grant 

m Dissimuldrit.~\ ' Diligenter et astute celo, occulto, fingo non 
esse, quod revera est.' 

n 2t7/Xo9 leal ehpalwfxa -nys aXrjOeiar'] Luther connects and 
refers these words, as the older editions of the Scriptures, and 
our translators, have done ; but Griesbach, and others after 
him, connect them with what follows. A very important 
sense is thus elicited -, " the pillar and ground of the truth 
(and without controversy great is the mystery of godliness) 
is God was manifested in the flesh, &c." — But there seems an 
evident allusion to the ancient tabernacle, with its boards and 
sockets (the pillars, or uprights, and the silver foundations into 
which these were grooved ; see Exod. xxvi. 15 — 30.) j of which 
the Church of God is the blessed reality ; even as that was the 
image, or figure. 

° Luther seems to have inferred the immaculateness of the 
militant and visible Church, from the above, and other like 
testimonies ; ' an entire exemption from error in a certain ever- 
subsistent community of the Lord's people tabernacling in 
flesh of sin'. The Nineteenth Article of our Church declares, 
more correctly, ' The visible Church of Christ is a congrega- 
tion of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God 
is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered, in all those 
things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church 
of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so also the 
Church of Rome hath erred ; not only in their living and man- 
ner of ceremonies,, but also in matters of faith.'— The same 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 97 

that some elect persons are held in error all their sec.viii. 

lifetime, still they must/ before death, return into 

the way ; because Christ says (John x. 28.), " No Erasmus 
one shall pluck them out of my hand." But this what he° V€ 
must be your labour and your achievement; even calls the 
to make it appear, with certainty, that those whom be 1 ^e ' t0 
you call the Church, are the Church ; or, rather, Church. 
that those, who all their lifetime were wanderers, 
have not at length been brought back to the fold, 
before they died. For it does not directly follow, 
if God hath suffered all those whom you adduce 
(scattered through as long a series of ages as you 
please, and men of the greatest erudition, if you 
please) to abide in error, that therefore he has 
suffered his Church to abide in error. 

Look at Israel, the people of God : of all their 
kings, so many in number, and reigning during so 
long a period, not even one is mentioned, but what 
erred. And under Elias the Prophet, to such a 
degree had all men, and all that was public* of that 
people, departed into idolatry; that he thought 
himself left alone. Yet, in the mean time, whilst 
God was going to destroy kings, princes, priests, 
prophets, and whatsoever could be called the 
people or church of God, he reserved to himself 
seven thousand men. But who saw or knew these 
to be the people of God ? So then, who will dare 
to deny, that God hath even now preserved to 
himself a Church amongst the common people, 
concealed under those principal men, (for you 
mention none but men of public office and of 
name — ) and hath left all those to perish, as he did 
in the kingdom of Israel ? since it is God's pecu- 

remark extends to each individual of the faithful. Who hath not 
erred in his lifetime ? Of whom shall we say, that he died 
without any mixture of error in his creed ? — Luther's repre- 
sentation, therefore, requires restriction : of such error as he 
is disputing about, it holds good. 

p Omne quod publicum erat.'] c Men of public station,, as 
opposed to private men.' Luther does not forget Erasmus's 
privatus and publicus. 

H 



98 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part ii. liar right and act, to entangle the choice men of 

Israel, and to slay their fat ones (Psa. lxxviii. 31), 

but to preserve the dregs and remnant of Israel 
alive ; as Esaias saith. q 

What happened under Christ himself: when all 
the Apostles were offended, and he was denied, 
and condemned by the whole people ; scarcely one 
or two, Nicodemus and Joseph, and afterwards 
the thief upon the cross, being preserved to him ? 
But were these, at that time, called the people of 
God? There was, indeed, a people of God re- 
maining, but it was not called so : what was called 
so, was not that people. Who knows, whether 
such may not have been the state of the Church 
of God always, during the whole course of the 
world, from its beginning ; that some have been 
called the people and saints of God, who were not 
really so ; whilst others, abiding as a remnant in 
the midst of them, have been, but have not been 
called, his people or saints ? as is shewn by the 
history of Cain and Abel, of Ishmael and Isaac, of 
Esau and Jacob. 

Look at the Arian period : r when scarcely five 

°i Frequent promises are made in this Prophet that ' a remnant 
shall be left.' " Except the Lord of Hosts had left us a very 
small remnant, we should have been as Sodom," &c. (Is. i. 9.) 
" The remnant of Israel and such as are escaped of the house of 

Jacob Theremnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, 

unto the mighty God." <e For though my people Israel be as 
the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return." 
(x. 20, 21, 22. Comp. Rom. ix. 27.) So Is. xi 11— 16. But I 
do not find the expressions ' dregs' and ' remnant' united. 

r Arrianorum seculum.~] Arianism arose early in the fourth 
century ; about three hundred years before the rise of the 
Popedom ; and, though condemned by Councils, was adopted 
by several of Constantine's successors, and became a source of 
grievous persecution to those who were sound in the faith. 
For an account of its origin and real nature, see Milner's Eccles. 
Hist. vol. ii. pp. 51 — 54. It was, in substance, a denial of the 
co-eternity, co-equality, and co-essentiality of the Lord Jesus 
Christ with the Father. ' Already some secret and ambiguous 
attempts had been made to lessen the idea of the divinity of the 
Son of God. While his eternity was admitted by Eusebius the 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 99 

Catholic 3 bishops were preserved in all the world, sec.viii. 
and those driven from their sees; the Arians 

historian, lie yet was not willing to own him co-equal with 
the Father. Arius went greater lengths : he said, 'That the Son 
proceeded out of a state of non-existence ; that he was not 
before he was made ; that he, who is without beginning, has 
set his Son as the beginning of things that are made j and that 
God made one, whom he called Word, Son, and Wisdom, by 
whom he did create us.' (Miln. in loc.) Like all the rest of 
heresy, it is truth corrupted ; and the only solid and satisfac- 
tory answer will be given to it, not by boldly asserting and 
proving the real and proper divinity of the Lord Jesus, but by 
showing forth his whole person in its complexity ; made up, 
as it is, of two persons, a divine person and an human person, 
held together by an indissoluble union : the secret being, that 
God does all his works by this complex person's agency, who 
acts in his human person as plenarily inspired by the Holy 
Ghost. This person who thus doeth that will of God — of God, 
even the Trinity — which is referred to the Father personally ; 
does hereby, amongst other subjects of manifestation, especially 
manifest that which we may well suppose to be the preemi- 
nent object of display in the tri-une Jehovah, the threefold 
personality of his one undivided essence. — I am aware that the 
term ' union of persons,' as substituted for • union of natures,' 
will be deemed objectionable, till it is well considered : but I 
have the authority of one of the best philosophers I know, for 
thus entitling the human part of the person of the Lord Jesus 
Christ. e That which can contrive, which can design, must be 
a person. These capacities constitute personality, for they imply 
consciousness and thought. They require that which can per- 
ceive an end or purpose ; as well as the power of providing 
means, and of directing them to their end. They require a cen- 
tre in which perceptions unite, and from which volitions flow ; 
which is mind. The acts of a mind prove the existence of a 
mind • and in whatever a mind resides is a person. The seat of 
intellect is a person.' (Paley's Nat. Theol. pp. 439, 440, 14th 
Ed n .) Now, is it not plain from Scripture, and the admis- 
sion of all Christians, with a very few heretical exceptions, 
that the Lord Jesus had this human mind, distinct from his 
godhead ? he had, therefore, according to this description, a 
person distinct from his divine person. — And, what is to hinder 
that divine person, if the will of God be so, from taking up an 
human person into union with himself, and acting in that per- 
son, from thenceforth, not in his divine person? Is not that 
union real, which subsists between this divine person and this 
human person ; when this human person, having been first 
generated, is afterwards inhabited, by his co-equal co- essential 
in the unity of God ? Does it not also subsist without for- 

h2 



100 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part ii. reigning every where, under the public name, and 

as filling the office/ of the Church. Nevertheless, 

under the dominion of those heretics, Christ pre- 
served his Church; but in such a form, that it was 
by no means supposed to be, or regarded as, the 
Church. 

Under the reign of the Pope, shew me a single 
bishop discharging his duty; shew me a single 
Council, in which matters of piety were treated of; 

feiture of distinctness ? Is it not also constant and unbroken, 
when that divine person evermore acts in and by that human 
person, putting his godhead as it were into abeyance ? Yet, 
are not his acts and his sufferings the acts and sufferings of the 
co-equal of the Father, and of the Holy Ghost ? There is no 
diminution, it is plain, of his essential godhead, in his volun- 
tarily, and to a great end, submitting to act by and in this 
creature person ; which constitutes him at the same time both 
creature and Creator : very man doeth the works of God, and 
very God doeth the works of man. — And, if this complexity of 
person is thus to be realized in time, what is to hinder that 
person in God, in whom it is to be realized, from transacting 
as though he actually were this complex person, from and in 
the beginning? Is not Jehovah's will both immutable and 
irresistible ? is it not his propriety, to call things which are not 
as though they were, and to give realized being to substances 
which, as yet, exist in predestination ? And must he not have 
acted thus in this particular instance, when he chose a people 
of mankind to be in this complex person as a head, and gave 
grace to that people so chosen, before the world began ? — 
Now, therefore, we can meet Arius upon his own ground, and 
confound him even there. Admitting all that he says, and 
says from the plain text of Scripture, about ' begotten,' ' non- 
existence,' ' was not before he was made,' ' God hath made one 
whom he calls Word, Son, and Wisdom, by whom he did 
create us •/ this in no wise impugns the co-eternity, co-equa- 
lity, and co-essentiality of the Lord Jesus Christ with the 
Father : his human person, by and in which he has thus been 
doing all things, is the creature which Arius would describe ; 
but he who assumed this person into union with himself is 
very God ; which implies, that he is all that God is. 

s Catholici.~\ Cath. opposed to heretical; a Greek term (aipeais^ 
alpeTLKor) denoting ' selection', or ' partiality,' as opposed to 
the profession of the whole faith. 

1 Publico nomine el officio^] They were publicly called, and 
recognised as, Christ's Church 5 and performed its public 
functions. 



ERASxMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 101 

and not robes, dignity, revenues, and other pro- sec.viii. 
fane trifles, which none but a madman can attri- — ■ 
bute to the Holy Spirit. Yet they are called the 
Church; when all who live as they did — whatever 
may be said of others — are in a lost state, and any 
thing* rather than the Church. Howbeit, under 
these Christ preserved his Church ; yet so, as not 
to have it called the Church. How many saints, 
think you, have these sole and special inquisi- 
tors 11 of heretical pravity burnt and slain; in the 
course of some ages, for which they have now 
reigned? Such as John Huss Y and the like; in 
whose time, no doubt many holy men lived, of the 
same spirit. 

Why do you not rather express your admira- 
tion at this, Erasmus, that, from the beginning of 
the world, there have always existed amongst the 
heathens men of more excellent genius, greater 
erudition, and more ardent study, than amongst 
Christians, or the people of God ? Just as Christ 
himself confesses, that the children of this world 
are wiser than the children of light. (Luke xvi. 8.) 
What Christian is worthy to be compared with 

u Soli isti inquisitor es.~] Referring, not to the Inquisition only 
(which was established about the year 1226 ; the Vaudois and 
Albigenses being the first objects of it) ; but to the whole system 
of espionage, confiscation, excommunication, and violence, with, 
which ' the lamb-like beast' professed to be achieving the 
extirpation of heresy ; whilst he was himself the great here- 
siarch. 

v John Huss, and his fellow-martyr Jerom of Prague, were 
amongst the earlier and most intrepid vociferators against the 
Papal abuses. They were favoured with much insight into the 
truth of God, walking in the light, and treading in the steps, 
of their immediate predecessor, WicklifFj though it has been 
said, that they struck at the branches rather than the root of 
Antichrist, not sufficiently exposing the predominant corrup- 
tions in doctrine. (See Milner, vol. iv. p. 2*5.) They suffered 
death, under very aggravated circumstances of perfidy, fierceness, 
and maliciousness, by a decree of the Council of Constance, 
1415, 1416 ; about a hundred years before Luther's time. Huss 
is supposed to have been Luther's swan; singing of him in his 
death, as one that should come after. 



102 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART II. 



SEC. IX. 

The 

Church is 
not yet 
manifest- 
ed ; the 
saints are 
hidden. 



but Cicero only — not to mention the Greeks — in 
genius, erudition, and diligence ? What shall we 
then say to have been the hindrance, that none of 
them hath been able to attain to grace? Cer- 
tainly they have exercised the free will with all 
their might : and who will venture to say, that 
not any one of them hath been most eagerly bent 
upon arriving at the truth ? Yet it must be 
asserted, that none of them hath reached it. Will 
you say here also, that it is incredible God should 
have left so many and so great men to them- 
selves, throughout the whole coarse of the world, 
and should have suffered them to strive in vain ? 
Assuredly, if Freewill were any thing, or could 
do any thing, it must have been something, and 
have done something, in those men ; in some one 
of them at least. But it has effected nothing ; 
nay, its effect has always been the opposite way. 
So that Freewill may be fully proved to be nothing, 
by this single argument ; that, from the beginning 
of the world to the end, no sign can be shewn 
of it. 

But to return to the point. What wonder, if 
God suffer all the great ones of the Church to walk 
in their own ways, when he has so left all nations 
to walk in their own ways ; as Paul says in the 
Acts? (xiv. 16.) The Church of God is not so 
vulgar s a thing, my Erasmus, as this name, 6 The 
Church of God/ by which it is called ; nor do the 
saints of God meet us up and down every where, 
so commonly as this name of theirs, 6 The Saints 
of God/ does. They are a pearl and noble gems; 
which the Spirit does not cast before swine, but, 
as the Scripture speaks, keeps hidden ; that the 



x Vulgaris."] Properly, < what is possessed by the common 
people;' c ordinary/ f common,' c promiscuous / opposed to 
( rare,' ' choice/ f what is the possession of a few.' The 
names ' Church of God/ and e Saints/ are in every body's 
mouth; but the things signified by these names are select and 
few. 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 103 

wicked may not see the glory of God. y Else, if SECT * x * 
these were openly recognised by all people, how 
could it happen that they should be so afflicted 
and persecuted in the world? as Paul says, "If 
they had known, they would not have crucified the 
Lord of glory." z 

I do not say these things, as denying that those Distinc- 
whom you mention were saints, or were the Church J 1 ™^ 6 " 
of God ; but because it cannot be proved (should judgment 
any one be disposed to deny it) that these iden- ? f f aithand 
tical persons were saints, but must be left alto- f charity. 
gether uncertain : and, consequently, an argument 
drawn from their saintship is not of sufficient 
credit a to confirm any dogma. I call them saints, 
and account them such ; I call, and think them to 
have been, the Church of God ; but by the law of 
love, not by the law of faith : that is, charity, 

y Gloriam Dei.'] These substances are not only select, but 
hidden ; ' the Church' is an invisible community, and the 
saints have no outward badge to distinguish them. If they 
could be discerned by the eye, that Scripture would be falsi- 
fied, which saith, ' The wicked shall not see the glory of God.' 
I do not find this text to which he appears to refer. The Lord's 
people are expressly called 'his hidden ones.' Ps. lxxxiii. 3. 
and his act of hiding them is mentioned Ps. xxvii. 5. xxxi. 20. 
Also the sentiment of * the wicked not seeing God,' is com- 
mon in Scripture, though not with this allusion 3 which is evi- 
dently a strained one, though beautiful and just. But I do not 
find any Scripture which puts the two sentiments together 3 
'hidden, that the wicked may not see.' ' The Church,' and ' each 
individual saint,' is a part of that substance, 'the mystical 
Christ,' which God has ordained and created to his glory. 

z Dominion glorice crucijixissent.~] Here again, we have a 
strained application of Scripture (1 Cor. ii. 8.) 3 although the 
sentiment be correct. What the Apostle there says, he says of 
Christ personally and exclusively ; but it is also true, that, in 
persecuting his people, they act his crucifixion over again. 
They are animated with the same spirit as the crucifiers ; and 
the Lord himself has said, with application to this very case, 
" Why persecutest thou Me?" 

a Locum satis fidelem~\ Loc. more strictly, ' a fund of ar- 
guments 3 ' ' locus' et e loci,' sunt sedes argumentorum, ex 
quibus ea tanquam e promptuario petuntur. Fid. t fide dignus,' 
' trustworthy 3 ' like Trurrm, it expresses either 'one who has 
faith,' or ' one towards whom faith is exercised,' 



]04 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part ii. which tliinketli all good of every man, and is in 
no wise suspicious, and believes and presumes all 
good of her neighbours, calls any baptized person 
youplease, b ' a saint/ Nor is there any mischief, 
if she be mistaken : because it is the lot of charity 
to be deceived; exposed, as she is, to all the 
uses and abuses of all men ; a general helper to 
the good and to the evil, to the faithful and to 
the unfaithful, to the true and to the false. But 
faith calls no man a saint, except he be declared 
such by a divine judgment. Because it is the 
property of faith, not to be deceived. So that, 
whereas, we ought all to be accounted saints mu- 
tually, by the law of charity ; still, no one ought 
to be decreed a saint by the law of faith; as 
though it were an article of faith, that this or that 
man is a saint. It is in this way, that the Pope, 
that great adversary of God, who sets himself in 
the place of God, canonizes his saints : of whom 
he knows not that they are saints. 
How Lu- This only I affirm, with respect to those saints 
separIt°e Uld °^ vours :> or rather of ours ; that, since they are at 
writers, variance amongst themselves, those rather should 
and parts ^ye been followed who spoke the best things; 

or writings. ,, , . , -»-, •it • , r i 

that is, against Jbreewill m support ot grace; and 
those should have been left, who, through infir- 
mity of the flesh, have witnessed to the flesh, 
rather than to the Spirit. Again ; those writers, 
who are inconsistent with themselves, should have 
been adopted and embraced where they speak 
after the Spirit, and left where they savour the 
flesh. This was the part of a christian reader; a 
clean animal, which parteth the hoof and chew- 
eth the cud. d But our course has been, to post- 

b Quamvis baptisatum.~] Luther states this too broadly : the 
judgment of charity is moderate and indulgent ; but surely there 
are deflections, both in faith and practice, which place many 
' a baptized unbeliever' beyond the bounds of the widest en- 
closures of charity. 

c See 2 Thessal. ii. 4. d See Levit. xi. 3. Deut. xiv. 6. 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 105 

pone the exercise of judgment, and to devour all sect.xi. 

sorts of meat indiscriminately : or, what is still — 

more unrighteous, by a perverse exercise of judg- 
ment, we reject the better and approve the worse, 
in the self-same authors ; and, after having done 
so, we affix the title and authority of their saint- 
ship to those very parts which are the worse : a 
title which they have deserved for their better 
parts, and for the Spirit only; not for their Free- 
will, or flesh. 

' What shall we do then? The Church is a hidden Erasmus's 
community : the saints are not yet manifested. pe !i pl *f^ 

J in 1 t o and advice 

What and whom shall we believer or, as you stated; m 
most shrewdly argue, who shall assure us ? How some <l e ~ 
shall we try their spirit ? e Ifyoulookto erudition, Sated, but 
there are Rabbies on both sides. If you look to amended. 
the life, on both sides are sinners. If you look 
to Scripture, both parties embrace it with affec- 
tion. Nor is the dispute so much about Scrip- 
ture (which is not even yet quite clear) as about 
the meaning of Scripture/ Moreover, there are 
on both sides men, who, if they do not promote 
their cause at all by their numbers, their erudition, 
or their dignity ; much less do so, by their fewness, 
their ignorance, and their meanness. The matter 
is therefore left in doubt, and the dispute remains 
still under the hands of the judge : so that it 
seems as if we should act most prudently in with- 
drawing, as a body, into the sentiment of the 
Sceptics ; unless we should rather choose to fol- 
low your best of all examples, who profess to be 
just in such a state of doubt, as enables you to tes- 
tify, that you are still a seeker and a learner of 

e Uncle explorabimus Spiritiim.~] Referring to 1 John iv. 1. 
Erasmus talks about Paul's recommending- to try the spirits, 
but evidently his allusion is to these words of St. John. 

f Neque adeo de Scripturd.'] It is not so much the 
authority of Scripture, as its right interpretation, which is in 
dispute. Qua necdum. Want of clearness is hinted rather than 
affirmed j ( necdum implies, c notwithstanding all that has been 
written and decreed about it.' 



106 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part ii. the truth ; inclining to that side which asserts the 

freedom of the will, only just until truth shall have 

made herself manifest/ 

To this I reply, 6 What you say here is the 
truth, but not the whole truth/ 5 For we shall not 
try the spirits by arguments drawn from the eru- 
dition, life, genius, multitude, dignity, ignorance, 
rudeness, paucity, or meanness of the dispu- 
tants. Nor do I approve those, who place their 
refuge in a boast that they have the Spirit. For I 
have had a very severe contest this year, 11 and am 
still maintaining it, with those fanatics who sub- 
ject the Scriptures to the interpretation of their 
own spirit. Nay, it is on this ground, that I have 
hitherto inveighed against the Pope himself; in 
whose kingdom nothing is more commonly urged, 
or more commonly received, than this saying, 
c That the Scriptures are obscure and ambigu- 
ous ;' e that we must seek the interpreting spirit 
from the Apostolic See of Rome/ There cannot 
be a more pernicious assertion than this ; from 
which ungodly men have taken occasion to exalt 
themselves above the Scriptures, and to fabricate 
just what they pleased : till at length, having quite 
trodden the Scriptures under foot, we were be- 
lieving and teaching nothing but the dreams of 
madmen. In a word, this saying is no human in- 
vention, but a mouthful of poison sent into the 
world by the incredible malice of the very prince 
of all the devils. 
sec. xn. This is our assertion ; that the spirits are to be 

tried and proved by two sorts of judgment. One of 

There are these j s internal ; by which, the man who has been 

two tnbu- 7 v r7 ■ ■ c 

nais for the enlightened by the Holy Spirit, or special gift of 

s Neque nihil, neque omnia clicis.~] Erasmus says rightly, ' the 
spirits must be tried ; ' wrongly, ' that there is no test of them.' 
Also, the tests he proposes are bad. 

h It was in 1525 (the date of his performance), that Luther 
published his ( Address to the Celestial Prophets and Ca- 
rolstadt.' 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 107 

God, for his own sake and for his own individual sec. xh. 

salvation, doth, with the greatest certainty, judge 

and discern the dogmas and thoughts of all men. spmts of 

cj o men * on. ft 

Of this judgment the Apostle speaks, 1 Cor. ii. pr ivate,the 
15. " He that is spiritual judgeth all things, and other pub- 
is judged of no man." This judgment appertains 
to faith ; and is necessary even to every private 
Christian. I have called it above c the internal 
clearness of Holy Scripture/ 1 Perhaps, this is 
what was meant by those who have replied to you, 
c that every thing must be determined by the judg- 
ment of the Spirit/ But this judgment is of no 
profit to any other person besides ourselves, and 
is not the subject of inquiry in this cause : nor 
does any one, I dare say, doubt that this judg- 
ment is just what I state it to be. 

There is, therefore, another judgment, which is 
external ; and by which we, not only for our- 
selves, but for others, and for the salvation of 
others, do with the greatest certainty judge the 
spirits and dogmas of all men. This is the judg- 
ment of the public ministry, an outward office, 
appealing to the word : what belongs chiefly to 
the leaders of the people, and preachers of the 
word. k We use it to confirm the weak, and to 

1 See Part i. Sect. iv. 

k Judicium publici ministerii in verbo.'] Minis. ' The office,, or 
body, of ministers.' In verbo. The word is to them, what the 
law of the land is to a civil judge. Offic. exter. opposed to an in- 
ternal function, or operation. Luther refers to the judgment 
of a synod, or council ; a tribunal, to which he always de- 
clared himself willing* to submit his own obnoxious assertions. 
He states the matter too broadly, and was guided by an 
image which he had in his mind of what might be, rather than 
by any exhibition of this external judgment which he had ever 
seen, or could appeal to as an example. A synod of real 
saints might be confidently looked to, as decreeing under the 
illumination of a light from above. But when has such a synod 
met since the council of Jerusalem ? (Acts xv. 1 — 31.) If, as 
it is probable, there be real saints in the council, who is to 
ensure their being the majority? Whilst great respect, there- 
fore, is due to a judgment of this kind, it cannot be that infal- 
lible one, which Luther's commendations might seem to imply. 



108 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



part ii. confute the gainsayers. I have called this above 

•' the external clearness of Holy Scripture/ Our 

assertion is, ' Let all the spirits be tried in the 
face of the Church at the bar of Scripture/ For 
it ought to be a first principle, most firmly main- 
tained amongst Christians, that the Holy Scrip- 
tures are a spiritual light, far brighter than the 
sun ; especially in those things which pertain to 
salvation, or are necessary. 

But, since we have now for a long time been 
persuaded to a contrary opinion by that pestilent 
saying of the Sophists, ' That the Scriptures are 
obscure and ambiguous;'' I am compelled, in the 
first place, to prove that very first principle of 
ours, by which all the rest are to be proved:— 
what would to philosophers appear absurd and 
impossible. 

First, then, Moses says (Deut. xvii. 8), that, if 
any difficult cause should arise, they must go up 
to the place which God hath chosen for his name, 



SEC.XIII. 



Clearness 
of Scrip- 
ture prov- 
ed, by testi- 
monies 
from the 
Old Testa- 
ment. 



It is not strictly parallel to the ' external clearness' of Scrip- 
ture 3 which he refers to, as asserted, Part i. Sect. iv. The 
testimony may be imperfectly brought out ; or the judges may 
not have eyes to see it. Would Luther undertake to say, that 
he should himself bring all the testimony that is in the Scrip- 
tures, to bear upon any given question ; or would he, had he 
been able to cite it, have convinced the Council of Constance, 
or the Council of Trent ? After all, the private and internal 
judgment which he speaks of; the Spirit shining upon and con- 
firming his testimony by the word, is that which the spiritual 
man must, and will, at last resort to, and can alone depend 
upon. He is thankful for, and in some sense obedient to, the 1 
judgment of pure synods (pure as such compounds can be ex- 
pected to be) 5 but to a higher Master he standeth or falleth. 
" This I say then, walk in" (or after) "the spirit." (Gal. v. 16.) 
— Enough for Luther's purpose may, however, be admitted. Let 
all dogmas be brought to the standard of Scripture, publicly ; 
let the leaders and counsellors of the people declare upon them, 
stating the grounds of their decision. Such judgment will 
have its weight, though not paramount ; and it will be mani- 
fested how slender, or how false, are the foundations of error. 
This object is obtained, in a great degree, now, by the free 
canvass which religious, as well as other opinions, are made to 
submit to, from the press. 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 109 

and there consult the Priests, who must judge it SEC.xm. 

according to the law of the Lord. " According 

to the law of the Lord/' saith he. But how shall 
they judge, except the law of the Lord, wherewith 
the people must be satisfied, were externally l most 
plain? Else, it were enough to say, 'They shall 
judge according to their own spirit/ Nay, the 
truth is, that in every civil government, all the 
causes of all the subjects are settled by the laws. 
But how could they be settled, except the laws 
were most certain, and just like so many shining 
lights amongst the people. For, if the laws were 
ambiguous and uncertain, not only would it be 
impossible that any causes should be decided, but 
there could be no certain standard of manners : 
since laws are made for this very purpose, that 
the manners of the people may be regulated by a 
certain model • and the principles by which causes 
are to be determined, may be defined. 111 That 
which is to be the standard and measure of other 
things, ought itself to be by much the surest and 
clearest of all things : and such a sort of thing is 
the law. Now, if this light and certainty in their 
laws be both necessary, and also conceded freely 
to the whole world, by a divine gift, in profane 
governments (which are conversant about tem- 
poral things) ; how is it possible, that God should 
not have granted laws and rules of much greater 
light and certainty to his christian people (Jiis 
chosen, forsooth); whereby to direct their own 
hearts and lives individually, and to settle all their 
causes? since He would have temporal things to 
be despised by his children ? For, " if God so 

1 Externe.] As opposed to a light of the Spirit, within the 
soul. 

m Causarum qucestiones definiantur.~\ The book of the laws lays 
down and recognises certain broad principles, to which the 
facts of each case are applied. These principles must be de- 
terminately fixed, admitted, and perspicuously affirmed. ' Status 
causa/ is the question of fact, at issue 5 ' quastio causa/ the law 
principle to which it is referable. 



HO BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part ii. clothe the grass, which to clay is, and to-morrow is 

cast into the oven, how much more shall he clothe 

us?" — But let us go on to overwhelm this pesti- 
lent saying of the Sophists with Scripture. 

The nineteenth Psalm (ver. 8) says, " The 
commandment of the Lord is lightsome, or pure ; 
enlightening the eyes." I suppose that which 
enlightens the eyes, is not obscure, or ambi- 
guous. 

So the 119th Psalm (ver. 130) says, "The door 
of thy words enlighteneth ; it giveth understand- 
ing to thy little ones." Here he attributes to the 
words of God that they are ' a door/ ' a something 
set open/ what is exposed to the view of all, and 
enlightens even the little ones. 

Isaiah viii. (ver. 20) sends all questions to the 
law and to the testimony ; threatening, that the 
light of the morning shall be denied us, unless 
we do so. n 

In Zech. ii.° he commands them to seek the 
law from the mouth of the Priest, as being the 
messenger of the Lord of Hosts. Pretty mes- 
senger or ambassador of the Lord, forsooth, if 
he speak those things which are both ambiguous 
in themselves, and obscure to the people ; so 
that he is as ignorant of what he speaks, as they 
are of what they hear. 

And what is more frequently said to the praise 
of Scripture, throughout the whole of the Old Tes- 
tament, and especially throughout that single hun- 
dred and nineteenth Psalm, than that it is in itself 

n In our version, it is not a threat, but an explanation of a 
fact : " If they speak not according to this word, it is because 
there is no light in them c " — A testimony equally conclusive as 
to the clearness of the word ; for how are we to compare decla- 
rations, and ascertain their conformity with the written word, 
if that word be not plain ? 

° A false reference : the words are found in Malachi ii. 7- 
" For the Priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should 
seek the law at his mouth 5 for he is the messenger of the Lord 
of Hosts." 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. HI 

a most certain and a most evident light ? For thus sec.xiv. 

he celebrates its clearness, " Thy word is a lamp 

unto my feet, and a light unto my paths." (v. 105.) 
He says not, ' Thy Spirit only is a lamp unto my 
feet :' albeit, he assigns its office to this also ; 
saying, u Thy good Spirit shall conduct me 
forth p in a right land." Thus, it is called both a 
6 way' and € a path;' q doubtless, from its exceed- 
ing great certainty. 

Let us come to the New Testament. Paul says Clearness 



np- 



(Rom. i. 2.), that the Gospel was promised by the ° fecnp 



ture 



Prophets in the Holy Scriptures : and in chap. iii. proved, by 
that the righteousness of faith was witnessed by testimo- 
the law and the Prophets. (Ver. 21.) But what theNew 
sort of a witnessing was this, if obscure ? Nay, he Testa- 
not only makes the Gospel c the word of light/ meilt * 
c the gospel of clearness/ in all his Epistles ; but 
does this professedly, and with great abundance 
of words, in 2 Cor. iii. and iv. where he reasons 
boastfully upon the clearness, as well of Moses as 
of Christ/ 

Peter also says (2 Peter i. 19), cc We have a 
very sure word of prophecy ; whereunto ye do 
well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth 
in a dark place/' Here Peter makes the word of 
God a clear lamp, and all other things darkness : 
and do we make obscurity and darkness of it ? 

Christ so often calls himself " the light of the 
world/' and John the Baptist " a burning and a 
shining light ;" not because of the sanctity of their 
lives, doubtless; but because of the word: just 

p Deducet.'] Like the nrpoireiMTw of the Greeks, expresses ' the 
escorting' of a person to his home. 

** Via et semita.~] Via, 'the broad carriage-road/ semita, 
f the narrow foot-path.' 

* Gloriose disputat.~] The Apostle institutes a comparison (in 
chap iii.) between the glory of the Gospel ministry and that of 
Moses ; shewing the superiority of the former. The scope and 
effect of the comparison is to magnify his own office : but the 
clearness of both is assumed, as the very basis of the argument ; 
a clearness, indicated in Moses by the glory of his countenance. 



112 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part ii. as Paul calls the Philippians " bright lights of the 

world;" "because ye hold fast 3 the word of life/' 

says he. For, without the wo rd,life is uncertain 
and obscure. 

And what are the Apostles about, when they 
prove their own preachings by the Scriptures ? Is 
it, that they may darken their own darkness to us, 
by greater darkness ? or, is it to prove the more 
known thing by one more unknown? What is 
Christ about, in John v. (ver. 39.) when he teaches 
the Jews to search the Scriptures ; as being his 
witnesses, forsooth ? Is it that he may render 
them doubtful about the faith of him? 1 What are 
those persons about, in Acts xviii. (ver. 2.) who, 
on hearing Paul, read the Scriptures day and 
night, to see whether those things were so ? Do 
not all these things prove, that the Apostles, as 
well as Christ himself, appeal to the Scriptures, as 
the clearest witnesses to the truth of their dis- 
courses ? With what face, then, do we represent 
them as obscure ? 

I beg to know, whether these words of Scrip- 
ture are obscure or ambiguous, " God created the 
heavens and the earth ;" " and the word was made 
flesh f and all those affirmations which the whole 
world has received as articles of faith : and 
whence received them, but from the Scriptures? 
And what are those about, who preach still to this 
day ? Do they interpret and declare 11 the Scrip- 

s Our translation says " holding forth;" Luther says " tene- 
Ms:" the original word is iirexavrer ' exhibeo,' ' prae me fero.' 
But it must be possessed, before it can be held forth ; and, if 
on this account they be called " lights," what must the word 
itself be ? 

1 Defide sui.~\ If these witnesses were doubtful, not clear ; 
he would be justifying them in their unbelief, instead of 
establishing his claim to be received. 

u Declarant.'] ' Make clear,' or ' cause to be seen j' it refers 
to the matter of Scripture, as inierpretantur does to the meaning 
of the terms ; an ' avowing,' ' propounding,' or ' distinctly set- 
ting forth to the world,' of the testimony, or truth of God, 
which is contained and shut up in the Scriptures. 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 113 

tures? If the Scripture, which they declare, be ob- sec.xiv. 

scure ; who is to assure us, that even this decla- 

ration of it is certain? Another new declaration? 
What shall declare that also ? At this rate, 
we shall have an endless progression. In fine, if 
Scripture be obscure or doubtful, what need was 
there for it to be declared to us by God from 
heaven? Are we not sufficiently obscure and 
ambiguous, without having our obscurity, ambi- 
guity, and darkness increased to us from heaven ? 
What will then become of that saying of the Apos- 
tle, " All Scripture, having been given by inspi- 
ration of God, is profitable for teaching, for 
reproving, and for convincing?" (2 Tim. iii. 16.) 
Nay, it is absolutely useless, Paul ! and what 
thou attributest to Scripture must be sought from 
the Fathers, who have been received for a long 
series of ages, and from the Roman see ! Thy 
sentence, therefore, must be revoked, which thou 
writest to Titus, " That a bishop must be mighty 
in sound doctrine, that he may be able both to 
exhort and to refute the gainsayers, and to stop the 
mouth of vain-talkers and soul-deceivers." How 
shall he be mighty, when thou leavest him the 
Scriptures obscure ; that is, arms of flax ; and, for 
a sword, light stubble ? Then must Christ also 
recant his own word, who falsely promises us, " I 
will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your 
adversaries shall not be able to resist." How 
shall they not resist, when we fight against them 
with obscure and uncertain weapons? — Why dost 
thou also prescribe a form of Christianity to us, 
if the Scriptures are obscure to thee? 

But I think I have long been burdensome, even 
to men of no sensibility, in making so long delay, 
and so wasting my forces' on a proposition which 
is most evident. But it was necessary to over- 



v Tantas moras traho et copias perdo.~\ His c copise' are his 
Scripture testimonies and reasonings. 

f 



114 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part ii. whelm that impudent and blasphemous saying, 

* The Scriptures are obscure ;' that you also 

might see, my Erasmus, what it is you say, when 

you deny the Scripture to be quite clear. For 

you must, at the same time, assent to me, that all 

your saints, whom you adduce, are much less clear. 

For who shall assure us of their light, if you make 

out the Scriptures to be obscure? So that those, 

who deny the Scriptures to be most clear and 

most evident/ leave us nothing but darkness. 

sec. xv. B a t } iere y 0U w in sa y^ 'All this is nothing to 

~~ me; I do not say that the Scriptures are obscure 

elusion is, upon all subjects (for who would be mad enough 

if the dog- to say so?); but only or this, and the like.' My 

Freewill answer is; neither do I assert these things in 

be obscure, opposition to you only, but in opposition to all 

Serf "tur" 1 W ^° t nrn k as you do. And again: in opposition 

to you distinctly; I affirm, with respect to the 

whole Scripture, that I will not allow any part of 

it to be called obscure. What I have cited from 

Peter stands good here ; that u the word of God 

is a lamp shining to us in a dark place." y Now, 

if there be a part of this lamp which shineth not; 

it will become part of the dark place, rather than 

of the lamp itself. Christ has not so enlightened 

us, as wilfully to leave some part of his word 

dark; when he, at the same time, commands us to 

give heed to it : for in vain he commands ns to 

give heed, if it doth not shine. 

So that, if the dogma of Freewill be obscure 
or ambiguous; it belongeth not to Christians and 
to the Scriptures, and should be altogether aban- 

x Lucidissimas et evidentissimas.~] Luc. c their testimony un- 
equivocal 3' evid. ' the terms in which that testimony is con- 
veyed, unambiguous.' — So that they may be compared to some 
of those beautiful orbs above us 5 which are not only luminous, 
but exposed to view. 

y See above, Sect. xiv. Stat ibi. e qui vigent,' ' in statu suo 
manent,' s incolumes sunt,' ' dignitatem suam retinent ;' non- 
nunquam stare dicuntur : opposed to { concido 3' ( loses none 
of its authority here.' 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 115 

doned, and ranked amongst those fables, which sec.xvi. 

Paul condemns Christians for wrangling about. 2 

For, if it belong to Christians and to the Scrip- 
tures, it ought to be clear, open, and evident, and 
just like all the other articles of the faith : which 
are most evident. For, all the articles, which 
Christians receive, ought not only to be most cer- 
tain to themselves, but also fortified against the 
assaults of other men, by such manifest and clear 
Scriptures, that they shut every man's mouth 
from having power to say anything against them: 
as Christ says in his promise, (i I will give you a 
mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries 
shall not be able to resist." If, therefore, our 
mouth be so weak in the behalf of this dogma, 
that our adversaries can resist it; what he says is 
false, that no adversary can resist our mouth. So 
that, we shall either meet with no adversaries, 
whilst maintaining the dogma of Freewill (which 
will be the case if it does not belong to us) ; or, if 
it do belong to us, we shall have adversaries, it is 
true ; but they shall be such as cannot resist us. 

But this inability of the adversaries to resist Meaning 
(since the mention of it has occurred here) con- an # dexem- 
sisteth not in their being compelled to abandon Sfthe pro- 
their own humour/ or being persuaded either to mise > ' Ail 

z Christianis rixantibus."] Luther does not appear to refer to 
any single text explicitly, but to the many warnings of this 
kind, which are dispersed throughout the Epistles to Timothy 
and Titus. The nearest references seem to be, 1 Tim. i. 4, 6. 
("Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which 
minister questions rather than godly edifying, which is in 
faith.". ..." From which some having swerved, have turned 
aside unto vain jangling.") 2 Tim. ii. 9,3. (" But foolish and 
unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.") 
And Titus iii. 9. (" But avoid foolish questions, and genealo- 
gies, and contentions, and strivings about the law 5 for they 
are unprofitable and vain.") 

a Sensu suo cedere.~] * Sensus ' is properly, ' the frame of 
thought, or of feeling,' whatever that be ; e the state of mind/ 
e Communis sensus,' which follows just below, is properly, 
' the common judgment,, or feeling, of mankind 3' and is 

i2 



116 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part ii. confess or to be silent. For who shall compel 

the unwilling to believe, to confess their error, 

youradver- or fo ^ e s il e nt ? What is more loquacious than 
not be able vanity, says Augustine ? — But their mouth is so 
to resist.' f ar stopped, that they have nothing to say in 
reply ; and, though they say much in reply, yet, 
in the judgment of common sense, they say 
nothing. This is best shewn by examples. When 
Christ had put the Sadducees to silence (Matt. 
xxii. 23 — 32.), by citing Scripture, and proving 
the resurrection of the dead from the words of 
Moses (Exod. iii. 6.), " I am the God of Abra- 
ham, &c." " He is not the God of the dead, but 

of the living — " upon this, they could not resist, or 
say any thing in reply. But did they, therefore, 
recede from their opinion ?— And, how often did 
he confute the Pharisees, by the most evident 
Scriptures and arguments ; so that the people 
clearly saw them convicted, and they themselves 
perceived it? Still, however, they continued his 
adversaries. Stephen, in Acts vii. b so spake, 
according to Luke, that " they were not able to 
resist the wisdom and the Spirit which spake in 
him." But what was their conduct? Did they 
yield ? So far from it, being ashamed to be over- 
come, and having no power to resist, they go mad; 
and, stopping their eyes and ears, suborn false 
witnesses against him. (Acts vi. 1 — 14.) See how 
he stands before the council, and confutes his 

thence transferred to express a certain imaginary standard of 
judgment, or court of appeal, the voice of unadulterated and 
unsophisticated nature, which we call ' common sense.' 

b This should be Acts vi. (v. 10.) There is a good deal of 
confusion in Luther's reference to this history. He represents 
the violence with which they rushed upon him at the close of 
his defence (especially when he had testified ' that he saw the 
heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right 
hand of God'), as having been expressed before his apprehension 
and arraignment, and refers the whole transaction to Acts vii. ; 
of which the first incidents are recorded in the preceding 
chapter. 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 117 

adversaries ! After having enumerated the bene- sec.xvi. 

fits which God had bestowed upon that people, 

from their origin, and having proved that God had 
never ordered a Temple to be built to him (for on 
this charge he was tried, and this was the point of 
fact at issue); he at length concedes, that aTemple 

c Reus agebaturJ] Re. ag. ' He was arraigned ; ' ed qucestione, ' on 
this indictment 5' this was the law-crime charged: status 
causes, 'the question of fact to be tried.' — Luther intimates, that 
his address to the council is resolvable into this main subject; 
*■ a defence against the charge of having blasphemed the Temple.' 
Such being the charge preferred against him, he repelled it, by 
maintaining that it was nothing criminal to speak against the 
Temple ; for that was not God's ordinance. Probably, he had 
been led by the Holy Ghost, to aim at beating down the idola- 
trous attachment which the Jews shewed to their Temple, in his 
reasonings with those who arose and disputed with him. But 
it is expressly said, <( they suborned men which said, We have 
heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and 
against God." (Acts vi. 11.) And afterwards ; "And set up 
false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak 
blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law." 
(Acts vi. 13.) — It should seem, therefore, that more was charged 
against him, with respect to this blasphemy, than he had 
really spoken. — Perhaps his defence ; or, as I would rather call 
it, his address ; may be correctly said to have had a broader 
basis than that of merely repelling a charge of having blas- 
phemed the Temple ; viz. that of proving, that the great body 
of their nation had always been " resisters " of the Holy Ghost ; 
and by inference, therefore, that they were such now, in what 
they had done to Jesus. From the Patriarchs downwards, 
their plans and efforts had always been in direct opposition to 
the counsel and purpose of God, as declared to them by those 
in whom the Holy Ghost spake. (See Heb. i. 1, 2. Gr.) 
Whatever was the accusation, and however he might design to 
repel it, the clue to his discourse seems to be found in 
vv. 51 — 53. " Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and 
ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost" — (not as striving in 
their own souls, but as testifying in those whom God sent to be 
his instruments for drawing out the enmity of their carnal 
mind) — " as your fathers did, so do ye." — On this broader basis, 
however, he contrives to build an answer to his own peculiar 
charge respecting the Temple ; by shewing, that this very 
Temple furnished one proof of their resistance to the Holy 
Ghost — their idolized Temple had not originated from God, but 
was man's device. It was, in fact, David's own suggestion, 
which he was forbidden to execute ; and was rather acquiesced 
in, than appointed of God (just as in the former case of appointing 



118 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part ii. had indeed been built to him, under Solomon. 

But then he abates the force of his concession/ 

by subjoining after this manner; " Howbeit the 
Most High dwelleth not in temples made with 
hands :" and, in proof of this, he alleges the last 
chapter of the Prophet Isaiah, Ci What house is 
this that ye build unto me?" (Isa. lxvi. 1.) Tell 
me, what could they say now, against so plain a 
Scripture ? But they, nothing moved by it, re- 
mained fixed in their own sentiment. Which 
leads him to inveigh against them also: e " Ye 
uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always 
resist the Holy Ghost." ' They resist/ he says ; 
whereas, in point of fact, they were not able to 
resist. 

Let us come to the men of our day/ When 
John Huss disputes after this manner against the 
Pope, from Matt. xvi. 18, &c. "The gates of hell 
prevail not against my Church." (Is there any 

a king, 1 Sam. viii — xii.) ; when the honour of building it was 
appropriated to Solomon. (2 Sam. vii. 1 Chron. xvii.) God's 
Temple (not only the spiritual one, but the material fabric also) 
was deferred till the latter times (Ezek. xl. — xlviii) ; and Solo- 
mon's was but an abortive birth, arising from the precocity of 
man : the Lord giving way, as it were, to man's device, 
that he might shew him its instability and vanity. God 
instituted a tabernacle (" Our fathers had the tabernacle of wit- 
ness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto 
Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he 
had seen." Acts vii. 44. &c. &c.) — a fabric more suited to the 
then state of his Church and nation — but the well-meaning 
vanity of his aspiring worshippers, would have a stately temple : 
as if walls and roofs could contain him ! ( ' Howbeit the Most 
High &c." 

d Subsumit.'] I do not find any authority for this word * but, 
taking the general principle of the preposition sub, when used 
in composition (secretly, diminutively); the amplification in the 
text seems most nearly to express the author's meaning. 

' Tandem concedit At ibi subsumit :' subs, implies ' a 

secret, or partial, retraction of his concession.' 

e Uncle et in eos.~\ In contradistinction to their fathers. 

f The Council of Constance, a. d. 1415. was Luther's day, 
and even our day, as compared with that of Christ and his first 
Martyr. 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 119 

obscurity or ambiguity in these words ?) But sc. xvn. 

against the Pope, and his abettors, the gates of 

hell do prevail ; since they are notorious for their 
manifest impiety and wickednesses all the world 
over. (Is this also obscure ?) Therefore the 
Pope and his partisans are not that Church of 
which Christ speaks. — What could they hereupon 
say against him; or how could they resist the 
mouth, which Christ had given him ? Yet they 
did resist, and persevered in their resistance, till 
they burnt him : so far were they from altering 
their mind. Nor does Christ suppress this, when 
he says, ' the adversaries shall not be able to 
resist.' They are adversaries, says he ; therefore 
they will resist. If they did not resist, they 
would not be adversaries, but friends ; and yet 
they shall not be able to resist. What is this, 
but to say, that, resisting, they shall not be able to 
resist ? 

Now, if we also shall be able so to confute Free- We must 
will, as that our adversaries cannot resist ; even be content 
though they retain their own humour, and, in spite ™ rt f vic- 
of conscience, hold fast their resistance ; we shall tol T- Our 
have done enough. For I have had abundant ex- wliTnot 7 
perience, that no man chooses to be conquered; confess 
and, as Quintilian says, c there is no one who ^ t self 
would not rather seem to know, than to be a 
learner :' although it be a sort of proverb in every 
body's mouth amongst us (from use, I should 
rather say abuse, more than affection), c I wish to 
learn ; I am ready to be taught ; and, when 
taught better things, to follow them. I am a man; 
I may err.' The truth is, men use such expres- 
sions as these, because, under this fair mask, as 
under a shew of humility, they are allowed con- 
fidently to say, <I am not satisfied; I do not 
understand him ; he does violence to the Scrip- 
tures ; he is an obstinate assertor:' because they 
are sure, forsooth, that no one can suspect such 



120 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



part ii. humble souls, as theirs, of being pertinacious in 

their resistance to truth ; and of making a stout 

attack upon her, when now they have even recog- 
nised her presence/ So then, it ought not to be 
ascribed to their own perverseness, that they keep 
their old mind; but to the obscurity and ambiguity 
of the arguments, with which they are assailed. 

This was just the conduct of the Greek philo- 
sophers also : that none of them might seem to 
yield to another, even though manifestly over- 
come, they began to deny first principles; as 
Aristotle recites. Meanwhile, we kindly persuade 
ourselves and others, that there are many good 
men in the world, who would be willing to em- 
brace the truth, if they had but a teacher who 
could make things plain to them; and that it is 
not to be presumed, that so many learned men, 
through such a series of ages, have been in error, 
or that they have not thoroughly understood the 
truth. As if we did not know, that the world is 
the kingdom of Satan : in which, besides the 
blindness adherent as a sort of natural excres- 
cence to our flesh, spirits even of the most mis- 
chievous nature having dominion over us, we are 
hardened in that very blindness; and now no 
longer held in chains of mere human darkness, 
but of a darkness imposed upon us by devils. 
sc.xviii. tf If the Scriptures then be quite clear, why have 

men of excellent understanding, you say, been for 

Why great so maQ y ao;es blind upon this subject?' I answer, 

sreniuses ■ ■ 

have been c they have been thus blind, unto the praise and 
blind about glory of Freewill : that this magnificently boasted 
vizTthat power, by which man is able to apply himself to 
they might those things which concern his everlasting salva- 



s Pertinaciter resistere, for titer impugnare.'] The unsuspected 
case was the real case : notwithstanding all his ostentatious 
professions of humility, Erasmus was not only rejecting clearest 
evidences of truth — which is bad enough — but even fighting 
against what he knew to be truth — wjiich, is far worse. 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 121 

tion; this power, I say, which neither sees what scxvin. 

it sees, nor hears what it hears — much less under ■ 

stands or seeks after these things ; might be S t ? ose . 1I 
shewn to be what it is. For to this belongs, what But no ' 
Christ and his Evangelists so often assert from wonder, 
Isaiah, " Hearing, ye shall hear and shall not na t ura i e 
understand ; and seeing, ye shall see and shall not man is 
perceive." What does this mean, but that the ^things 
free will, or human heart, is so trodden under foot of God. 
of Satan, that, except it be miraculously 11 raised 
up by the Spirit of God, it cannot of itself either 
see or hear those things which strike upon the 
very eyes and ears, so manifestly as to be pal- 
pable to the hand : such is the misery and blind- 
ness of the human race. For it is thus, that even 
the Evangelists themselves, after expressing their 
wonder how it should happen that the Jews were 
not taken with the works and words of Christ — 
which were absolutely irresistible and undeniable — 
reply to their own expressions of wonder, by 
citing this passage of Scripture r 1 by suggesting, 
forsooth, that man, left to himself, seeing sees not, 
and hearing hears not. What can be more mar- 
vellous ? " The light," saith he, " shineth in 
darkness, and the darkness apprehendeth it not." 

h Mirabiliter suscitetur.'] Mir. would express either the na- 
ture or the degree of influence exerted ; but here it must be the 
nature : the very least degree of the Holy Ghost's regenerating 
energy, applied to the natural soul, produces this result ; an 
energy which admits not of degrees. One soul is not more 
regenerated than another : and every such act of regeneration 
is a miracle ; an exercise of super- creation grace and of super- 
natural power, effecting a supernatural constitution and state, 
in those that are the subjects of it. " Except a man be begotten 
from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God." " Except a 
man be begotten of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter 
into the kingdom of God." " Of his own will begat he us by the 
word of truth." "Everyone that doeth righteousness hath 
been begotten of him." 

1 See especially John xii. 37 — 41. It is remarkable that this 
passage of Isaiah is quoted more often than any other in the 
New Testament ; being found in each of the Evangelists, in 
Acts xxviii, and in Rom. xi. 



122 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part ii. (John i. 5. k ) Who would believe this? who 

ever heard the like? that the light shineth in 

darkness; and yet the darkness remains darkness, 
and is not made light ? 

Besides, it is nothing wonderful, that men of 
excellent understanding have for so many ages 
been blind in divine things. In human things, it 
would be wonderful. In divine things, the wonder 
rather is, if one or two be not blind ; whilst it is 
no wonder at all, if all, without exception, be 
blind. For what is the whole human race, without 
the Spirit, but the kingdom of the devil, as I have 
said; a confused chaos of darkness? Whence 
Paul calls the devils, " the rulers of this dark- 
ness ;" and says (1 Cor. ii. 8.), " None of the 
princes of this world knew the wisdom of God !" 
What do you suppose that he thought of the rest, 
when he asserts that the princes of the world were 
slaves of darkness ? For, by princes, he means 
the first and highest persons in the world : whom 
you call men of excellent understanding. Why 
were all the Arians blind ? Were there not, 
amongst them, men of excellent understanding ? 
Why is Christ "foolishness" to the Gentiles? 1 Are 
there not amongst the Gentiles men of excellent 
understanding? Why is he to the Jews "a stum- 
bling-block?" Have there not been amongst the 
Jews men of excellent understanding ? " God 
knoweth the thoughts of the wise," says Paul ; 

k Apprehendunt .] More proper than our version ''compre- 
hend / which implies ( compassing about/ and so (trans- 
latively) ' taking in the whole of a substance :' ov KcneXaftcv 
avTo- ' did not lay hold of it, so as to possess it 5' ' did not 
receive/ or ( admit' the ' light ;' but (as Luther explains it) 
remained darkness still. See Sleusner in v. fccnaXauftdviv 
' excipio/ ' admitto.' 

1 1 Cor. i. 23. Our authorized version, and most copies, 
read " Greeks :" by which St. Paul frequently denominates 
that part of the world which is not Jewish ; as Rom. i. 16. 
It would seem to give more point to Luther's antithesis here : 
but <c Gentiles " is the more authentic reading. See Gries- 
bach's text and note in loc. 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 123 

" for they are vain." He would not say, " of sc.xviir. 

men/' as the text itself has it; m but singles out 

* the first and chiefest amongst men :' that from 
these we may estimate the rest of them. 

But I shall perhaps speak more at large of these 
things, hereafter. Suffice it, for an exordium, to 
have premised * that the Scriptures are most 
clear ;' and e that, by these our dogmas may be 
so defended, as that our adversaries shall not be 
able to resist/ Those dogmas, which cannot be 
so defended, are other people's; and do not belong 
to Christians. Now, if there be those who do not 
see this clearness, and are blind, or stumble, in this 
sunshine ; these, on the supposition that they are 
ungodly men, shew how great is the majesty and 
power of Satan in the sons of men: even such, that 
they neither hear nor apprehend the clearest 
words of God. Just as if a man, beguiled by 
some sleight of hand trick, should suppose the 
sun to be a piece of unlighted coal, or should 
imagine 11 a stone to be gold! On the supposi- 
tion that they are godly persons, let them be 
reckoned amongst those of the elect, who are led 
into error some little, that the power of God may 
be shewn in us : without which, we can neither see, 
nor do any thing at all. For, it is not weakness of 
intellect (as you complain), which hinders the 
words of God from being apprehended : on the 
contrary, nothing is more adapted to the appre- 
hension of the words of God, than weakness of 
intellect. For, it is because of the weak, and unto 
the weak, that Christ both came, and also sends 
his word. But it is the mischievousness of Satan, 
who sits and reigns in our weakness, resisting the 

m Psalm xciv. 11. 

n Puiet, sentiat.~\ Put. is rather matter of reasoning and 
argument; sent, rather matter of sense. Both are intermixed 
here, though each has its distinct appropriation : he thinks 
about the sun, he handles the stone. — A double error is pointed 
out by the illustration. These ungodly men assert what is not, 
and deny what is. 



124 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part ii. word of God. If it were not for this acting of 

Satan, the whole world of men would be converted 

by one single word of God, once heard; nor would 
there be any need of more. 
sc. xix. And why do I plead long ? why do we not 

finish the cause together with this exordium, and 

shewn™ ^* ve sen ^ ence against you, on the testimony of your 
have ad- own words ? according to that saying of Christ, 
mittedthat "By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by 
is°ciear! e thy words thou shalt be condemned." p (Matt. xii. 
37.) You assert, ' that the Scripture is not 
clear upon this point:' and then, as though the 
sentence of the judge were suspended, you dis- 
pute on both sides of the question, advancing all 
that can be said both for and against Freewill. 
This is all that you seek to gain by your whole per- 
formance ; which, for the same reason, you have 
chosen to call a Diatribe rather than an Apophasis, q 
or any thing else : because you write with the in- 
tention of bringing all the materials of the cause 
together, without affirming any thing. If the 
Scripture, then, be not plain, how comes it that 
those of whom you make your boast ; that is, so 
numerous a series of the most learned men, whom 
the consent of so many ages hath approved even 
to this very day; are not only blind upon this 

° Luther does not distinguish here, as he ought to do, be- 
tween what Satan has made of us, and what Satan personally 
does in us. The soul of man, in its natural state, is so blinded 
and hardened and satanized, that, even if there were no imme- 
diate agency of his upon any individual soul, the effect of 
f one' or even ' many ' words of God (unaccompanied by his 
quickening Spirit) would not be such as Luther describes ; but 
it would still reject the truth ! 

p A forced application of the words. The Lord is there 
speaking of the words being a sure index of the mind. Luther 
seems to have got some confusion into his mind, from Luke 
xix. 22. " Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, &c." 

i A Greek term, which may express either ' affirmation' or 
f negation j ' but here clearly denotes the former : with allu- 
sion either to the ' explicit avowal of private opinion 5' or, to 
e the judge delivering his sentence in court.' 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 125 

subject, but even rash and foolish enough to cle- sc. xix. 

fine and assert Freewill from the Scripture, as 

though that Scripture were positive and plain. 
The greater number of these men come recom- 
mended to us, you say, not only by a wonderful 
knowledge of the sacred writings, but by piety of 
life. Some of them, after having defended the 
doctrine of Christ by their writings, gave testi- 
mony to it with their blood. If you say this sin- 
cerely, it is a settled thing with you, that Freewill 
has assertors endowed with wonderful skill in the 
Scriptures; who have borne witness to it as a part 
of Christ's doctrine with their blood. If this be 
true, they must have considered the Scripture as 
clear : else, how should they be said to possess a 
wonderful skill in the sacred writings ? Besides, 
what levity and temerity of mind would it have 
been in them, to shed their blood for a thing that 
is uncertain and obscure ? This is not the act of 
Christ's martyrs, but of devils. 

r Now, therefore, do you also i set before your 
eyes and weigh with yourself, whether you judge, 
that more ought to be attributed to the prior judg- 
ments 8 of so many learned men, so many orthodox 
men, so many holy men, so many martyrs, so 
many ancient and modern theologians, so many 
universities, so many councils, so many bishops, 
and so many popes — who have thought the Scrip- 
tures clear, and have confirmed their opinion by 
their blood, as well as by their writings — or to your 

r Jam et tu pone."] Luther here retorts Erasmus's own words 
upon him. " Et tamen illud interim lectorem admonitum velim, 
si etc. . . .ut turn denique sibi ponat ob oculos tam numerosam 

seriem eruditissimorumvirorumetc turn illud secumexpendat, 

utrum plus tribuendum esse judicet tot eruditorum, tot ortho- 
doxorum etc .... prsejudiciis, an unius aut alterius privato judicio.' 

8 PrcEJudiclis.'] A forensic term, expressing either, 1. ( prece- 
dents which apply to an undecided cause 5' or, 2. c matters 
relating to the cause in hand, which have already been decided ;' 
or, 3. 'a previous judgment of the cause itself { as here. 
These men had sat in judgment upon this question before, and 
had decided it. 



126 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part II. own single judgment — which is that of a private 
individual — denying the Scriptures to be clear:' 
when, it may be, you have never sent forth one 
tear, or one sigh, for the doctrine of Christ. If 
you believe these men to have thought correctly, 
why not follow their example ? If otherwise, why 
boast yourself with such a puffed cheek and such 
a full mouth ; as if you would overwhelm me with 
a sort of tempest and flood of words : which falls, 
however, with still greater force upon your own 
head, whilst my ark rides aloft in security. For 
you, in the same instant, attribute the greatest 
folly and temerity to these so many and so great 
ones ; when you write, that they were most skilful 
in the Scriptures, yet have asserted by their pen, 
by their life, and by their death, a sentiment 
which you nevertheless maintain to be obscure 
and ambiguous. What is this but to make them 
most ignorant in knowledge, and most foolish in 
assertion? I, their private clespiser, should never 
have paid them such honour, as you, their public 
commender, do. 1 
sec. xx. I hold you fast then, here, by a horned syllogism, 

as they call it: 11 for one or other of these two 

Sd^elTto things must be false; either what you say, c that 
a dilemma, these men were worthy to be admired for their 
knowledge of the sacred writings, life and mar- 
tyrdom ;' or what you say, 'that the Scripture 
is not plain/ But, since you would rather choose 

1 Privatus &c] The substance is, e Insignificant Luther, 
whom Erasmus taunted with his obscurity, and with his con- 
tempt of these great men (though, in fact, he had only shaken 
off the yoke of their undue authority, without expressing any 
sentiment of contempt), would never have so vilified them in 
his privacy, as Erasmus — the man of name and fame — was 
doing by his public extolment of them.' 

u Cornuto syllogismo.~] Com. syll. Dilemma j so called, be- 
cause the horns of the argument are, in this kind of syllogism, 
so disposed, that to escape the one you must run upon the 
other. The term f horns' is applied to argumentation ; from 
a certain disposition of forces, as well naval as military, in 
which they resemble the horns of the crescent moon. 



ERASMUS'S PROEM REVIEWED. 127 

to be driven upon this horn of the two, c that the sec.xx. 

Scripture is not plain ' (what you are driving at - 

throughout your whole book); it remains, that you 
must have pronounced them to be most expert in 
Scripture, and martyrs for Christ, either in fun or 
in flattery — certainly not seriously — merely to 
throw dust in the eyes of the common people, and 
to give Luther trouble, by loading his cause with 
hatred and contempt, through vain words. How- 
ever, I pronounce neither true; but both false. 
I affirm, first, that the Scriptures are most clear; 
secondly, that those persons, so far as they assert 
Freewill, are most ignorant of the Scriptures; 
thirdly, that they made this assertion neither with 
their life, nor by their death, but only with their 
pen — and that, under absence of mind. 

I do therefore conclude this little disputation/ 
thus. ' By Scripture — seeing that it is obscure — 
nothing certain has yet been determined, or 
can be determined, on the subject of Freewill ; 
according to your own testimony/ That, ' by 
the lives of all men, from the beginning of the 
world, nothing has been shewn in support of 
Freewill/ is what I have argued above. Now r , 
to teach any thing which is neither enjoined 
by a single word in Scripture, nor demonstrated 
by a single fact out of Scripture ; is no part 
of christian doctrine, but belongs to the true 
stories of Lucian : x except that Lucian — sporting 
as he does, on ludicrous subjects, in mere jest and 
wittingly — deceives nobody and hurts nobody. But 

v Dispuiatiunculam.'] Disp. The diminutive implies e a dis- 
cussion subordinate to the main point in debate.' 

x See Part i. Sect. v. note < J. Lucian, the Epicurean philo- 
sopher of Samosata, in Syria, ridiculed all religions ; and 
served Christianity, without meaning it, pretty much as 
Erasmus was doing — by depreciating the fashionable and 
reigning idolatry. He died wretchedly, a. d. 180. — Much of 
his writings is in dialogue — Erasmus's favourite composition — 
with which he interweaves many * true stories/ of very doubt- 
ful credit. 



128 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part ii. these antagonists of ours play the madman on a 

' serious subject — even one pertaining to eternal 

salvation — to the destruction of innumerable 
souls. 
sec. xxi. Thus, too, I might have put an end to this whole 

question about Freewill ; since even the testimony 

daimsvic- °f m y adversaries is on my side, and at war with 
tory ai- theirs : whilst there is no stronger proof against an 
^i? y,but accused person, than his own proper testimony 
ceed. against himself. But, since Paul commands us to 

stop the mouths of vain babblers, let us take the 
very pith and matter of the cause in hand; treating 
it in the order in which Diatribe pursues her 
inarch. Thus, I will first confute the arguments 
adduced in behalf of Freewill ; secondly, de- 
fend our own confuted ones ; and, at last, make 
my stand for the grace of God, in direct conflict 
with Freewill. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 129 

SECT. & 



PART III. 

LUTHER CONFUTES ERASMUS'S TESTIMONIES 
IN SUPPORT OF FREEWILL. 



SECTION I. 

Erasmus' $ Definition of Freewill examined. 

And firsts as in duty bound, I shall begin with 
your very definition of Freewill; which is as 
follows : 

c Moreover, by Freewill here, I mean that power 
of the human will, whereby a man is able to apply 
himself to those things which lead to eternal sal- 
vation, or to turn himself away from them/ 

With great prudence, doubtless, you lay down 
a naked a definition here; without opening any 
part of it, as is customary with others : afraid of 
more shipwrecks than one ! I am, therefore, com- 
pelled to beat out the several parts of it, for my- 
self The thing defined, if it be strictly examined, 
is certainly of wider range than the definition: it 
is, therefore, what the Sophists would call a de- 
fective definition; such being their term for those 
which do not fill up the thing defined. 15 For I 
have shewn above, that Freewill belongs to none 
but God only. You might, perhaps with pro- 
priety, attribute will to man; but to attribute free 
will to him, in divine things, is too much : since 
the term Freewill, in the judgment of all ears, is 

a Bald and bare $' without any appendage of amplification, 
resolution of parts, or illustration. 

b The idea is that of a mould not filled up : the definition is 
not commensurate with the thing defined. 

c See Part i. Sect xxv. note l . 

K 



130 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. properly applied to c that which can do, and which 

"' ' does/ towards God, whatsoever it pleases; without 

being confined by any law, or by any command. 
You would not call a slave free, who acts under 
the command of his master. With how much 
less propriety do we call a man, or an angel, free : 
when they live under the most absolute subjec- 
tion to God (to say nothing of sin and death), so 
as not to subsist for a moment by their own 
strength. 

Instantly, therefore, even at the very doors of 
our argument, we have a quarrel between the de- 
finition of the name, and the definition of the thing; 
the word signifying one thing, and the thing itself 
being understood to be another. It would be 
more properly called vertible will, or mutable will. 
For thus Augustine, and after him the Sophists, 
extenuates the glory and virtue of that word Free; 
adding this disparagement to it, ' that they speak 
of the vertibility of the free will/ And so it 
would become us to speak, that we might avoid 
deceiving the hearts of men by inflated, vain, and 
pompous words : as Augustine also thinks, that we 
ought to speak in sober and plain words, observ- 
ing a fixed rule. For, in teaching, a dialectic 
simplicity and strictness of speech is required; 
not big swelling words, and figures of rhetorical 
persuasions 
sect. ii. But, lest I should seem to take pleasure in 

■ fighting for a word, I will acquiesce, for the mo- 

Defimtion men f \ n \fo\s abuse of terms, ^r eat and dangerous 

continued • 

as it is ; so far as to allow a ' free' will to be the 
same as a 'vertible' will. I will also indulge 
Erasmus with making Freewill ' a power of the 
human will;' as though Angels had it not : since, 
in this performance, he professes to treat only 

d f A fixed rule/ opposed to whim, taste or chance -, ' sober/ 
opposed to ' extravagant / f plain/ or ' proper/ opposed to 
f figurative / ' strictness of speech/ (i. e. words used in their 
own genuine and natural sense) opposed to ( metaphor/ f logic' 
opposed to f rhetoric.' 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 131 

of human Freewill : else, in this particular also, SECT. II. 

the definition had been narrower than the thing — * 

defined. 

I hasten to those parts of the definition on 
which the subject hinges. Some of these are suf- 
ficiently manifest; others flee the light, as though 
a guilty conscience made them afraid of every 
thing : yet a definition ought to be the plainest 
and most certain thing in the world; for to define 
obscurely, is just like not defining at all. These 
parts are plain : 6 a power of the human will f 
also, e by which a man is able / also, c unto eter- 
nal salvation :' but those words, ' to apply him- 
self;' and again, c those things which lead/ 
and again, ' to turn away himself/ are words 
of the hoodwinked fencer. 6 What shall we 
then divine that saying, ' to apply himself/ to 
mean? Again, 'to turn away himself V What 
are those words, e which lead to eternal salvation?' 
What corner are thev slinking" into ? I have to do, 
as I perceive, with a very Scotus or Heraclitus; f 
who wears me out with two sorts of labour. 
First, I have to go in search of my adversary, and 
to grope for him in the dark, amidst pitfalls, with 
a palpitating heart (a daring and dangerous en- 

e A/idabate."] ( A man fighting in the dark, with his eyes 
blinded :' a name given (quasi ai/afiarai sive avravafia-ai) to cer- 
tain fencers, or gladiators, who fought on horseback with their 
eyes covered ; or, more properly, ' to the man who went up 
into the chariot to fight with the charioteer.' It was one of 
the games of the Circus ; of which the peculiarity consisted in 
the conflict being maintained in the dark. Jerome has the ex- 
pression, ''More andabatarum, gladium in tenebris ventilans 5' 
with allusion to the former of these customs. 

f Scotus.~\ The celebrated Duns Scotus, a Franciscan ; the great 
opponent of Thomas Aquinas, the Dominican. He acquired 
the name of the ' subtile' doctor 5 as his opponent did that of 
the ' angelic' Heraclitus, the weeping philosopher, was 
characterised as ' tenebrosus,' or f obscure 5' from the enig- 
matical style in which he communicated his reveries. Socrates 
is said to have expressed an admiration of some of his pieces, 
so far as he could understand them ; but to have intimated 
the danger there was of being drowned in his incomprehensible 
depths. 

k2 



132 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. terprise); and, if I do not find him, to fight with 
hobgoblins, and beat the air in the dark, to no pur- 
pose. Secondly, if I shall have dragged him into 
the light; then at length, when I am worn out 
with the pursuit, I have to close with him in 
equal fight. 

By c a power of the human will/ then, is meant, 
as I suppose, an ability, or faculty, or disposedness, 
or suitedness, to will, to refuse, to choose, to de- 
spise, to approve, to reject, and to perform whatever 
other actions there are of the human will. But, 
what is meant by this same power c applying itself 
and turning away itself;' except it be this very 
willing and refusing, this very choosing and de- 
spising, this very approving and rejecting; in 
short, except it be c the will performing its very 
office ;' I see not. So that we must suppose this 
power to be c a something interposed between the 
will itself and its actings :' a power, by which the 
will itself draws out the operation of willing and 
refusing, and by which that very act of willing and 
refusing is elicited. It is not possible to imagine 
or conceive any thing else here. If I be mistaken, 
let the fault be charged upon the author who de- 
fines, not upon me who am searching out his mean- 
ing. For, it is rightly said by the jurists, that the 
words of him who speaks obscurely, when he 
might speak more plainly, are to be interpreted 
against himself. And here, by the way, I could 
be glad to know nothing of these Moderns, g with 
whom I have to do, and their subtleties : for we 
must be content to speak grossly, 11 that we may 
teach and understand. ( The things which lead to 
eternal salvation/ are the words and works of 

s Moderni."] Quasi hodierni. The subtile doctor and his con- 
temporaries, together with those who had preceded them, from 
Peter Lombard downwards,, were but men of ' to-day y as 
compared with the ancient logicians, and with the Fathers. 
Also, the Schoolmen were divided into three classes, like the 
Academics ; old, middle, and new. Scotus was of the last. 

h Crasse.'] ' Dull, heavy, fat-headed 5' as contrasted with their 
wire-drawn refinements. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 133 

God, I suppose : which are set before the human sect. in. 

will, that it may either apply itself to them, or turn " 

aw ay from them. By the words of God, I mean 
as well the Law as the Gospel : works are de- 
manded by the Law; faith by the Gospel. 1 For 
there are no other things that lead either to the 
grace of God, or to eternal salvation, save the 
word and work of God : since grace, or the 
Spirit, is the life itself; to which we are led by 
the word and work of God. k 

But this life, or eternal salvation, is a thing in- Definition 
comprehensible to human conception; as Paul conlmued - 
cites from Isaiah (1 Cor. ii. 9.): u What eye hath 
not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath entered into 
the heart of man, are the things which God hath 
prepared for them that love him." For this also 
is placed amongst the chief articles of our faith: 
in confessing which we say, * and the life ever- 
lasting/ And what the power of Freewill as to 
receiving this article is, Paul declares in 1 Cor. 
ii. 10. " God," saith he, " hath revealed them to 
us by his Spirit." As if he should say, c except 
the Spirit shall have revealed them, no man's 
heart will know or think any thing about them ; 
so far is it from being able to apply itself there- 
unto, or to covet them/ 

Consult experience. What have the most ex- 
cellent wits amongst the heathens thought of a 

1 Luther speaks here, as theological writers commonly do. 
But the truth is ; the Law required faith, and the Gospel re- 
quires works : though the form of the two several dispensations 
was such as Luther represents them. The Law was designed 
to shut the Church up unto faith ; the Gospel, to open it, by 
that faith which is itself a work (for " this is the work of God 
that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent." John vi. 29.) to 
those works which alone are acceptable to God ; viz. the 
actings and manifestations of a self-emptied, contrite, and 
believing soul. 

k He speaks not of any particular word or work of God, but 
of his whole word, and of his whole work ; excepting only 
what he does, by his special grace, in and upon the hearts of 
his people. 



134 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. future life, and of the resurrection? Has it not 

been, that, the more tliey excelled in genius, the 

more ridiculous did the resurrection, and eternal 
life, appear to them. Except you will say, that 
those philosophers and other Greeks, who called 
Paul a babbler, 1 and an assertor of new Gods, 
when he taught these things at Athens, were not 
men of genius. Porcius Festns calls Paul a mad- 
man, in Acts xxvi. m (ver. 24.) for preaching eter- 
nal life. What does Pliny bark about these 
tilings, in his seventh book? What says Lucian, 
so great a wit? Were these men stupid? Nay, it 
is true of most men, even at this day, that the 
greater their genius and erudition, the more they 
laugh at this article, and account it a fable ; and 
that openly. For, as to the secret soul, no man 
positively, except he be sprinkled with the Holy 
Ghost, either knows, or believes in, or wishes for 
eternal salvation, even though he may make fre- 
quent boast of it with his voice and with his pen. 
Would to God that you and I, my Erasmus, were 
free from this same leaven ! so rare is a believing 
mind, as applied to this article. — Have I hit the 
sense of your definition ? 
sect. iv. So then, Freewill, according to Erasmus, is a 
power of the will, which is able, of itself, to will 

fromEras aD( * n0t t0 W *^ ^ G W0Y & an( * WOrt ° f ^°d \ ^Y 

mus's deft- which word and work, it is led to those things 
nition. which exceed both its sense and thought. — But 

1 Babbler. ,] STre/^oAo-yo? is a term of contempt, applied pro- 
perly to persons who went about the forum picking up the 
seeds and crumbs, or whatever else might fall between buyer 
and seller, and making a living out of them. Hence applied 
to a loose, ignorant, unordered, and unmeasured speaker ; one 
who retails the sort of refuse, common-place scraps, which he 
has picked up in the streets. New Gods, not in the invidious, 
or disparaging sense of demons, or of odi/uoues • but some addi- 
tional deities : objects of worship, having the same sort of 
claim to reverence which the rest of their multiplied divinities 
had. 

m He says, Acts xxiv. j but the allusion is manifestly to 
Acts xxvi. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 135 

if it be able to will and to refuse, it is able also sect.iv. 

to love and to hate. If it be able to love and to ' 

hate, it is able also, in some small degree, to do the 
deeds of the Law, and to believe the Gospel : be- 
cause if you will, or refuse a certain thing, it is 
impossible but that you must be able to work 
something towards it, by means of that will, even 
though you be not able, through another's hinder- 
ing, to finish it. Now, since death, the cross, and 
all the evils of the world are numbered amongst 
those works of God which lead to salvation ; the 
human will must be able to choose even death and 
the man's own destruction. Nay, it is able to 
will all things ; whilst it is able to will the word 
and work of God. For, what can there be any 
where, that is below, above, within, or without, the 
word and work of God ; save God himself? 11 And 
what is now left to grace, and the Holy Spirit ? 
This is manifestly to attribute divinity to Free- 
will : since to will the Law and the Gospel, to re- 
ject sin, and to choose death, is the property of 
divine virtue exclusively; as Paul teaches in more 
places than one. 

Hence it appears, that no man, since the Pela- 
gians' days, has written more correctly on Free- 
will, than Erasmus has. For I have said before, 
that Freewill is a term peculiar to God, and ex- 
presses a divine perfection. However, no man 
has attributed this divine power to it hitherto, 
except the Pelagians : for the Sophists, whatever 
they may think, certainly speak very differently 
about it. Nay, Erasmus far exceeds the Pela- 
gians : for they attribute this divinity to the whole 
of the free will, Erasmus to half of it. They make 
Freewill to consist of two parts; a power of dis- 

n Intrci extrh.'] ' On this side of it, or beyond it :' which, when 
joined with the preceding words ( infra, supra/ express * the 
universal comprehension of the word and work of God 5' as 
containing ' all that is above, beneath, and on all sides of us' — 
with only one exception. 



130 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



part in. cerning, and a power of choosing: of which they 

feign the one to belong to the understanding, and 

the other to the will ; as the Sophists also do. But 
Erasmus, making no mention of the power of dis- 
cerning, confines his praises to the power of 
choosing, singly ; and so deifies a sort of crippled 
and half-begotten Freewill. What would he have 
done, think you, if he had been set to describe the 
whole of this faculty ? 

Yet, not content with this, he even exceeds the 
heathen philosophers. For they have not yet 
determined c whether any substance can put itself 
into motion;' and on this point, the Platonics and 
Peripatetics differ from each other, throughout the 
whole body of their philosophy. But, according 
to Erasmus, Freewill not only moves itself, but 
applies even to those things which are eternal; 
that is, incomprehensible to itself; by its own 
power. A perfectly new and unheard-of definer 
of Freewill; who leaves heathen philosophers, 
Pelagians, Sophists, and all others, far behind 
him ! Nor is this enough : he does not even spare 
himself, but even disagrees and fights with him- 
self, more than with all the rest. He had before 
said, ' the human will is altogether inefficacious 
without grace;' (did he say this in jest?) but 
now, when he defines it seriously, he tells us that 
the human will possesses that power, whereby it 
is efficacious to apply itself to those things which 
are belonging to eternal salvation; that is, to 
those things which are incomparably above its 
power. Thus Erasmus is, in this place, superior 
even to himself also. 
sect.v. j) y 0U perceive, my Erasmus, how, by this 
definition, you (without meaning it, as I suppose) 
betray yourself to be one who understands nothing 



Erasmus's 
definition 



° Erasmus lias made Freewill greater than itself. Luther 
puns upon this, and intimates that he has even out-heroded 
Herod here j not only exceeding philosophers, &c. but even 



his own extravagant self. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 137 

at all about these things, or who writes on them sect. v. 
in sheer thoughtlessness and contempt, without 
proving what he says, or what, he affirms. As I ^^ P that 
have remarked before, you say less, and claim of the 
more, for Freewill, than all the rest of its advo- So P hlsts - 
cates have done : inasmuch as you do not even 
describe the whole of Freewill, and yet assign 
every thing to it. The Sophists (or at least their 
father, Peter Lombard) deliver what is far more 
tolerable to us, when they affirm, that e Freewill is 
the faculty of first discerning good from evil, and 
then choosing good or evil according as grace be 
present, or be wanting/ p He agrees entirely with 
Augustine, that ' Freewill, by its own strength, 
cannot but fall ; and has no power, save to com- 
mit sin/ On which account, Augustine says, it 
should be called Bondwill, rather than Freewill; 
in his second book against Julian. 

But you represent the power of Freewill to be 
equal on both sides, inasmuch as it can, by its 
own strength, without grace, both apply itself to, 
and turn away itself from good. You are not aware 
how much you attribute to it by this pronoun 
' itself/ or e its own self/ whilst you say, ? it can 
apply itself! ' In fact, you exclude the Holy 
Spirit with all his power, as altogether super- 
fluous and unnecessary. Your definition is there- 
fore damnable, even in the judgment of the 
Sophists; who, if they were not so maddened 
against me by the blindings of envy, would rave 
at your book rather than mine. But, since you 
attack Luther, you say nothing but what is holy 
and catholic/ even though you contradict both 
yourself and them. So great is the patience of 
the saints/ 

p They ascribed tlie power of discerning;, out of hand; but 
the power of choosing good, conditionally. 

* Catholicum.~\ Cath. ( Ad omnes pertinens,' e quod ubique et 
apud omnes disseminatum est, et ab omnibus recipi debet.' 
' What all are bound to receive as true.' 

r A sarcastic allusion to Rev. xiii. 10. xiv. 12. 



138 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. I do not say this as approving the sentence of 

the Sophists on Freewill, but as thinking it more 

tolerable than that of Erasmus ; because they 
approach nearer to the truth : but neither do they 
affirm, as I do, that Freewill is a mere nothing. 
Still, inasmuch as they affirm (the Master of the 
Sentences 5 in particular) that it has no power of 
itself without grace, they are at war with Eras- 
mus ; nay, they seem to be at war also with them- 
selves, and to be torturing one another with dis- 
putes about a mere word : being fonder of con- 
tention than of truth, as becometh Sophists. For, 
suppose a Sophist of no bad sort to come in my 
way, with whom I were holding familiar conversa- 
tion and conference upon these matters in a corner; 
and whose candid and free judgment I should ask, 
in some such way as this : ' If any one should pro- 
nounce that free to you, which, by its own power, 
can but incline to one side (that is, to the bad 
side); having power, it is true, on the other side 
(that is, on the good side) — but that, by a virtue 
not its own ; nay, simply by the help of another : 
could you refrain from laughing, my friend ?' For, 
upon this principle, I shall easily make it out that 
a stone, or the trunk of a tree, has Freewill ; as 
being that which can incline both upwards and 
downwards ; by its own power, indeed, only 
downwards ; yet, by another's help, and by that 
only, upwards also. And thus, as I have before 
said, by an inverted 1 use of all languages and 
words, we shall at length come to say, c No man 
is all men;' c nothing is every thing:' as refer- 
ring the one term to the thing itself, and the 

s Master &c. A title with which Peter Lombard was dig- 
nified, from his work entitled ' The Sentences ;' by which he 
was supposed to have rendered the same service to Divinity, 
which Gratian, his contemporary, had done to Law. He was 
the father of scholastic theology, which succeeded to that of 
the Fathers ; his work being considered as the great source of 
that science, in the Latin church. He died A. d. 1164. 

1 ' Turning words topsy-turvy.* 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 139 

other to some other thing, which is no part of SECT. VI. 
it, but may possibly be present to it and befal ~ ' 

it. u 

It is in this way, that, after endless disputing^, 
they make the free will to be free by an accident; 
viz. as being that which may be made free by 
another. But the question is about the freedom 
of the will, as it is in itself, and in its own sub- 
stance : and if this be the question resolved, there 
remains nothing but an empty name for Freewill, 
whether they will or no. The Sophists fail in this 
also ; that they assign a power of discerning good 
from evil, to Freewill. They also lower regene- 
ration, and the renewal of the Holy Ghost ; and 
claim that extrinsic aid, as a sort of outward ap- 
pendage to Freewill : v of which I shall say more 
hereafter. But enough of your definition : let us 
noAV see the arguments which are to swell out 
this empty little word. x 

The first is that taken from Eccl us . xv. (vv. 15 — Ecci«s. xv. 
18.) w The Lord made man from the beginning, cf^idered. 
and left him in the hand of his own counsel. He 
added his commands, and his precepts. If thou 
shalt be willing to keep his commandments, and 
to perform acceptable faithfulness for ever, they 
shall preserve thee. He hath set fire and water 
before thee ; stretch forth thy hand unto whether 

u For example ; ' Nothing is all things.' Why, God made 
all things of nothing. You might call that ' nothing,' ' all 
things $' but it would be, by referring the term ' nothing' to 
the thing itself, and ' all things' to c the existent one % who 
being present communicates being (which he has in himself) 
to this ' nothing.' 

v Velut extcrne affinguntJ] The gift of the Spirit, though 
of course not inherent, they represented as inseparably at- 
tached to the free will ; and so, communicated as matter of 
course. 

x Irtflatura."] A figure taken from blowing a bladder,, or 
from raising a bubble, or from making a musical instrument 
to sound aloud : ' to give size, or substance, or sound, to this 
empty, speechless thing.' 



140 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. thou wilt. Before man is life and death, good 
and evil, whether him liketh shall be given 
him." y 

Although I might justly reject this book, for 
the moment I admit it; that I may not lose my 
time by involving myself in a dispute about 
the books received into the Hebrew canon : which 
you ridicule and revile not a little ; comparing the 
Proverbs of Solomon and the Love-song (as you 
by an ambiguous sort of jeer entitle it) with the 
two books of Esdras, Judith, the history of Susan- 
nah and of the Dragon, and Esther. 2 This last, 
however, they have received into their canon ; 
although, in my judgment, deserving, more than 
all the rest, to be excluded. But I would answer 
briefly, in your own words : ' the Scripture is ob- 
scure and ambiguous in this passage;' it there- 
fore proves nothing with certainty : and, main- 
taining as we do the negative, I demand of you to 
produce a place which proves what Freewill is, 
and what Freewill can effect, by clear words. 
Perhaps you will do this on the Greek calends. a 
Howbeit, to avoid this necessity, you waste many 
good words in marching over the ears of corn, b 

y The Greek text, from which our authorized version is a 
faithful translation, omits the words ' conservabunt te,' and 
' adjecit mandata et prsecepta sua.' Also in verse 17 ; ' bonum 
et malum.' The Syriac, or vulgar Hebrew, in which this book 
was originally written, is lost ; although Jerom professes to 
have seen it. What Jesus the Son of Sirach produced in the 
Syriac, his grandson translated into Greek, for the benefit of • 
his countrymen in Egypt ; who, by long disuse, had forgotten 
the Hebrew tongue. 

z c The rest of the chapters of the Book of Esther, which are 
found neither in the Hebrew, nor the Chaldee.' 

a Grcecas calendas.~\ e A day that will never come ;' a Latin pro- 
verb taken from the Greeks having no calends to their months, 
as the Latins had. 

b Super aristas incedis."] Applied proverbially, to ' one who 
affirms nothing absolutely :' he skims the ears of corn, fearing 
to set his foot on them. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 141 

and reciting so many opinions on Freewill, that sect.vi. 

yon almost make Pelagius evangelical. Again; 

yon invent four kinds of grace, that yon may be 
able to assign some sort of faith and charity, even 
to the heathen philosophers. Again ; yon invent 
that threefold law of nature, works, and faith : 
a new figment, by which you enable yourself to 
maintain, that the precepts of the heathen philo- 
sophers have a mighty coincidence with the pre- 
cepts of the Gospel. Then again ; you apply 
that affirmation in Psalm iv. " The light of thy 
countenance has been marked upon us, Lord;"' 1 
which speaks of the knowledge of the very 
countenance of God (that is, of an operation 
of faith) to blinded reason. Now, let any Chris- 
tian put all these things together, and he will 
be obliged to suspect that you are sporting and 
jesting with the dogmas and worship of Chris- 
tians. For I find it most difficult indeed to at- 
tribute all this to ignorance, in a man who has 
so thoroughly ransacked 6 all our documents, 
and so diligently treasured them up and remem- 
bered them. But I will abstain for the present, 
content with this short hint; till a fitter op- 
portunity shall offer itself. But let me beg of 
you, my Erasmus, not to tease us any more in 
this way, with your c Who sees me V nor is it 
safe, in so weighty a matter, to be continually 

c Pelagius.'] The great heresiarch of Freewill, in the fifth 
century ; a native of Wales, and as is supposed, a monk of Ban- 
gor • who exchanged his original name of Morgan, for the more 
imposing one of Pelagius. 

d We read Psalm iv. 6. "Lord lift thou'up," &c. as a prayer; 
but it may with equal propriety be read as an affirmation. 

e Nostra omnia sic perlustravit ."] I refer the ' nostra omnia' 
to the sacred records, * the authorized documents of Chris- 
tianity;' not the writings of Luther and his friends. Perlustr. 
does not express ( real insight into the things contained in 
those documents,' but c complete outside inspection.' This 
is just the sort of knowledge which Luther would choose to 
ascribe to him, and which is amply sufficient to exempt him 
from the plea of ignorance. 



142 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. playing at making* Vertumnuses of words, with 

every body} 

sec. vii. You make three opinions on Freewill, out of 
~ one ; accounting that a harsh one/ which denies 

on P F™eevviii that a man can w ^ good without special grace ; 

stated. which denies that he can begin any thing good, 
denies that he can go on with any thing good, de- 
nies that he can complete any thing good. But 
though harsh, you account it highly approvable. 
It approves itself to you, as leaving man in pos- 
session of desire and endeavour, but not leaving 
him any thing to ascribe to his own powers. The 
opinion of those who maintain that Freewill can 
do nothing but sin ; that only grace works good 
in us ; seems still more harsh to you : but most 
of all, that opinion which affirms Freewill to be an 
empty name, God working both good and evil in 
us. It is against these two last opinions, that you 
profess to write. 

sec. vni. Do you even know what you are saying, my 

Erasmus ? You make three opinions here, as if 

Erasmus ^ were the opinions of three different sects : 

inconsis- J .. x • • it i • l i i 

tent with not perceiving, that it is the same thing declared 
his defini- j n different words, with a twofold variety, by us, 
the same persons, and professors of one sect. 
But let me warn you of your carelessness, or dull- 
ness of intellect; and expose it. 

I ask then, how does the definition of Freewill, 
which you have given above, correspond with 
this first opinion of yours ; which you declare to 

f e Us,' opposed to ' every body.' He represents him as 
playing at peep with the learned j and as deceiving the people by 
his tricks upon words, by which he gave the same word as 
many faces as Vertumnus. He plagued the wise ; he deceived 
the vulgar. Vertumnus had many faces : hence, ' Vertumnis 
verborum ludere,' f to play at making words like Vertumnus ;' 
that is, different in appearance, whilst really the same. Eras- 
mus could say and unsay every thing, by his copiousness, ver- 
satility, and ambiguity of words. 

s Erasmus does not introduce the word f harsh' in describing 
this first opinion ; Lather ascribes it to him, as implied in his 
description of the other two. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 143 

be highly approvable ? For you have said, that SEC - IX - 
Freewill is a power of the human will, by which a 
man can apply himself to good. But here you 
say, and approve its being said, that a man can- 
not will good, without grace. Your definition 
affirms what its illustration denies ; and there is 
found c a yea and nay 9 in your Freewill : so that 
you at the same time both approve and condemn 
us; nay, condemn and approve yourself, in one 
and the same dogma and article. 11 Do you not 
think it good, that it applies itself to those things 
which pertain to everlasting salvation? This is 
what your definition attributes to Freewill; and 
yet there is no need of grace, if there be so much 
of good in Freewill that it can apply itself to 
good. So then, the Freewill which you define, is 
a different thing from the Freewill which you de- 
fend ; and Erasmus has two Free wills more than 
others have, and those quite at variance with each 
other. 

But, dismissing that Freewill which your defini- The appro- 
tion has invented, let us look at this contrary one, nio/con- 
which the opinion itself sets before us. You grant, sidered. 
that a man cannot will good without special grace ; 
and we are not now discussing what the grace of 
God can do, but what man can do without grace. 
You grant therefore, that Freewill cannot will 
good. This is nothing else, than that it cannot 
apply itself to those things which appertain to 
eternal salvation, as you sung out in your defini- 
tion. Nay, you say a little before, that the hu- 
man will is so depraved, that, having lost its 
liberty, it is compelled to serve sin, and cannot 
restore itself to any better sort of produce. If I 
do not mistake, you represent the Pelagians to 
have been of this opinion. — Now, I think there is 
no escape here for my Proteus. He is caught and 

h The definition says, e can apply itself to those things, &c.' 
The approvable opinion says, f cannot will good.' 



144 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. held by open words ; to wit, the will, having lost 

its liberty, is driven into, and held fast in, the ser- 
vice of sin. O exquisite Freewill which, having 
lost its freedom, is declared by Erasmus himself to 
be the servant of sin! When Luther said this, 
c nothing had ever been heard that is more ab- 
surd;' 'nothing could be published that is more 
mischievous than this paradox/ Diatribes must 
be written against him ! 

But perhaps nobody will take my word for it, 
that Erasmus has really said these things : let 
this passage of Diatribe be read, and it will excite 
wonder. Not that I am greatly surprised. The 
man who does not account this a serious subject, 
and is never affected with the cause he is pleading, 
but is altogether alienated from it in heart, and is 
tired of it, and chills under it, or nauseates it — how 
can such an one do otherwise than here and there 
say absurd things, incongruous things, discordant 
things? pleading the cause as he does, like a 
drunken or sleeping man, who belches out ' yes/ 
c no/ as the sounds fall variously upon his ears. 
It is on this account, that rhetoricians require feel- 
ing in an advocate ; and much more does theology 
require such a degree of emotion in her champion, 
as shall render him vigilant, sharpsighted, intent, 
thoughtful, and strenuous. 
sect. x. If then Freewill, without grace, having lost her 

freedom, is obliged to serve sin, and cannot will 

vabieo P i-" &°°d > ^ should like to know what that desire, 
nionfur- what that endeavour is, which this first and appro- 
ver c °«- V able opinion leaves to a man? i It cannot be good 

desire, it cannot be good endeavour : because he 
cannot will good ; as the opinion says, and as you 
have conceded. Evil desire, therefore, and evil 
endeavour are alone left ; which, now that liberty 
is lost, are compelled to serve sin. — And what is 
meant, pray, by that saying 'This opinion leaves 

1 ( It leaves man in possession of desire and endeavour/ &c. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 145 

desire and endeavour, but leaves not that which sec. xi. 

may be ascribed to the man's own powers V Who 

can conceive this ? If desire and endeavour be 
left to Freewill, why should they not be ascribed 
to it ? If they are not to be ascribed, how can 
they be left? Are this desire and endeavour, 
which subsist before grace, left even to that \ery 
grace which is to come, and not to Freewill ; so 
as to be at the same time left, and not left, to this 
same Freewill? If these be not paradoxes, or 
rather monsters, I know not what monsters are. 

But perhaps Diatribe is dreaming, that there is Freewill 
a something between this being able to will good, not 'ane- 
and not being able to will good, which is the mere f^-mediate 
power of willing ; distinct from any regard to good power of 
or evil. Thus, Ave are to evade the rocks by a the wllL> 
sort of logical subtilty ; affirming, that there is, in 
the will of man, a certain power of willing, which 
cannot indeed incline to good without grace, and 
yet even without grace does not forthwith will 
only evil : a pure and simple power of willing; 
which may be turned by grace upwards to good, 
and by sin downwards to evil. But what then 
becomes of that saying, c having lost its liberty, 
it is compelled to serve sin V Where then is 
that ' desire and endeavour' which is left? 
Where is that power of applying itself to those 
things which belong to eternal salvation ? For that 
power of applying itself to salvation cannot be a 
mere abstract power of willing, unless salvation 
itself be called nothing. — Then, again, desire and 
endeavour cannot be a mere power of willing; 
since desire must lean and endeavour some 
whither, and cannot be carried towards nothing, 
or remain quiescent. In sliort, whithersoever 
Diatribe shall be pleased to turn herself, she can- 
not escape contradictions, and conflicting expres- 
sions : so that even Freewill herself is not so much 
a captive, as Diatribe who defends her. She so en- 
tangles herself, in her attempts to give liberty to 



146 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. the will, that she gets bound with indissoluble 

' chains, in company with her freedmaid. 

Then, again, it is a mere fiction of logic, that 
there is this middle faculty of mere willing in 
man ; nor can those prove, who assert it. Igno- 
rance of things, and servile regard to words, has 
given birth to this fancy; as if the will must 
straightway be such in substance, as we set it out 
in words. The Sophists have numberless fig- 
ments of this sort. The truth rather is, what 
Christ says, u He that is not with me is against 
me." He does not say, c He that is not with me, 
nor against me, but in the middle/ For, if God 
be in us, Satan is absent, and only to will good is 
present with us. If God be absent, Satan is pre- 
sent, and there is no will in us but towards evil. 
Neither God, nor Satan, allows a mere abstract 
power to will in us ; but, as you have rightly said, 
having lost our liberty, we are compelled to serve 
sin • that is, we will sin and wickedness ; we speak 
sin and wickedness ; we act sin and wickedness. 
See into what a corner Diatribe has been driven, 
without knowing it, by invincible and most mighty 
truth \ who has made her wisdom folly, and com- 
pelled her, when meaning to speak against us, to 
speak for us, and against herself: just as Free- 
will does, when she attempts any thing good ; for 
then, by opposing evil, she most of all does evil, 
and opposes good. Thus Diatribe is much such a 
speaker, as Freewill is an actor. Indeed, the 
whole Diatribe itself is nothing else but an ex- 
cellent performance of Freewill, condemning by 
defending, and defending by condemning ; k that is, 
twice a fool, whilst she would be thought wise. 
sec. xn. rpj^ £ rs {- opinion, then, as compared with itself, 
Th is such as to deny that man can will any thing 

provable good, and yet to maintain that desire is left to him; 

k f Not only ruining her own cause, but establishing her 
adversary's/ 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. ]47 

and yet that this desire also is not his. Let us sec. xii. 

now compare it with the other two. — ( The second 

is harsher, which judges that Freewill has no °P inion , 

, / . 9 Tp m, . , . compared 

power but to commit sin/ I ins, however, is with the 
Augustine's opinion ; expressed in many other other two - 
places, and specially in his treatise on the Letter 
and Spirit (the fourth or fifth chapter, if I am not 
mistaken), where he uses these very words. 

f That third opinion is the harshest of all, which 
maintains that Freewill is an empty name, and that 
all we do is necessarily under the bondage of sin/ 
Diatribe wages war with these two. Here, I 
admit that probably I may not be German enough, 
or Latinist enough, to enunciate the subject matter 
perspicuously; but I call God to witness, that I 
meant to say nothing else, and nothing else to be 
understood, by the expressions used in these two 
last opinions, than what is asserted in the first 
opinion. Nor did Augustine, I think, mean any 
thing else ; nor do I understand by his words any 
thing else, than what the first opinion asserts. So 
that the three opinions recited by Diatribe are, in 
my view, but that one sentiment, which I have 
promulgated. For, when it has been conceded 
and settled, that Freewill, having lost her freedom, 
is compelled into the service of sin, and has no 
power to will any thing good; I can conceive no- 
thing else from these expressions, but that Free- 
will is a bare word ; the substance expressed by 
that word having been lost. Lost liberty my art 
of grammar calls no liberty at all ; and to attri- 
bute the name of liberty to that w r hich has no 
liberty, is to attribute a bare name to it. If I 
wander from truth here, let who can recal me 
from my wanderings ; if my words be obscure 
and ambiguous, let who can make them plain, and 
confirm them. I cannot call lost health, health ; 
and if I should ascribe such a property to a sick 
man, what have I given him but a bare name ? 
But away with such monstrous expressions ! 
l2 



148 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART III. 



SC. XIII. 

Ecclesias- 
ticus xv. 
J 4—1 Pre- 
sumed, and 
expounded. 



For, who can bear that abuse of language, by 
which we affirm that man has Freewill; yet, with 
the same breath, assert that he has lost his liberty, 
and is compelled into the service of sin, and can 
will nothing good. Such expressions are at vari- 
ance with common sense, and absolutely destroy 
the use of speech. Diatribe is to be accused, 
rather than we ; she blurts out her own words as 
if she were asleep, and gives no heed to what is 
spoken by others. She does not consider, I say, 
what it is, and of what force it is, to declare that 
man has lost his liberty, is compelled to serve sin, 
and has no power to do any thing good. For, if 
she were awake and observant, she would clearly 
see that the meaning of the three opinions, which 
she makes diverse and opposite, is one and the 
same. For the man who has lost his liberty, who 
is compelled to serve sin, and who cannot will 
good — what shall be inferred more correctly con- 
cerning this man, than that he does nothing but 
sin, or will evil ? Even the Sophists would 
establish this conclusion by their learned syllo- 
gisms. So that Madam Diatribe is very unfor- 
tunate in entering the lists with these two last 
opinions, whilst she approves the first, which is 
the same with them ; again, as her manner is, 
condemning herself, and expressing approbation 
of my sentiments, in one and the same article. 

Let us now return to the passage in Ecclesias- 
ticus; comparing that first opinion, which you de- 
clare to be appro vable, with it also, as we have 
now done wdth the other two. The opinion says, 
6 Freewill cannot will good/ The passage from 
Ecclesiasticus is cited to prove, that ' Freewill is 
nothing, and can do nothing/ The opinion which 
is to be confirmed by Ecclesiasticus, then, de- 
clares one thing, and the passage from Eccle- 
siasticus is alleged to confirm another. As if a 
man, going to prove that Christ is Messias, should 
adduce a passage which proves that Pontius 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 149 

Pilate was Governor of S)Tia; or something else, sec.xiii. 

which is as wide from it as the extreme notes of the 

double octave. 1 Just such is your proof of Free- 
will here : not to mention, what I have dispatched 
already, that nothing is here clearly and certainly , 
affirmed, or proved, as to what Freewill is, and can 
do. But it is worth while to examine this whole 
passage. 

In the first place, he says, c God made man in 
the beginning.' Here he speaks of the creation 
of man, and says nothing, hitherto, either about 
Freewill, or about precepts. 

It follows ; ' and left him in the hand of his own 
counsel/ What have we here ? Is Freewill 
erected here? Not even here is any mention 
made of precepts, for which Freewill is required; 
nor do we read a syllable on this subject, in the his- 
tory of the creation of man. If any thing be meant, 
therefore, by the words c in the hand of his 
counsel,' it must rather be, what we read in the 
first and second chapters of Genesis : c Man was 
appointed lord of the things which were made, so 
as to have a free dominion over them;' as Moses 
says, "Let us make man, and let him have domi- 
nion over the fishes of the sea, &c." Nor can 
any thing else be proved from these words. For 
in that state, man had power to deal with the 
creatures according to his own will, they being 
made his subjects; and he calls this man's coun- 
sel, in opposition to God's counsel. But after 
this, when now he has declared man to have been 
thus constituted the ruler, and to have been left 
in the hand of his own counsel ; he goes on, 

" He added his own commands and precepts." 
To what did he add them ? Why, to the counsel 
and will of man ; and over and above that esta- 
blishment of the dominion of man over the rest of 

1 Quod disdlapason conveniaf] A Greek proverb, denoting 
the greatest possible dissimilitude. 



150 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. the creatures. By these precepts, he took away 
from man the dominion over one part of his crea- 
tures (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, 
for instance), and rather willed that it should not 
be free. Having mentioned the adding of pre- 
cepts, he next comes to man's will towards God, 
and the things of God. 

" If thou shalt be willing to keep the command- 
ments, they shall preserve thee, &c." From this 
place, then, £ if thou slmlt be willing/ the ques- 
tion about Freewill begins. So that we may 
learn from the Preacher, that man is divided be- 
tween two kingdoms ; in the one of which, he is 
borne along by his own will and counsel, without 
any precepts or commandments from God; to 
wit, in the exercise of his relations to the inferior 
creatures. Here he reigns, and is lord, as having 
been left in the hand of his own counsel. Not 
that God so leaves him, even here, as not to co- 
operate with him in all things ; but that he leaves 
him a free use of the creatures, according to his 
own will, not restricting him by laws or injunc- 
tions. Just as if you should say, by way of com- 
parison, ' The Gospel has left us in the hand of 
our own counsel, to rule over the creatures, and 
use them as we please ; but Moses and the Pope 
have not left us in this counsel, but have re- 
strained us by laws, and have rather subjected us 
to their wills/ — But in the other kingdom, man 
is not left in the hand of his own counsel, but is 
borne along, and led by the will and counsel of 
God. So that, as in his own kingdom, lie is borne 
along by his own will, without the precepts of 
another ; so, in the kingdom of God, he is borne 
along by the precepts of another, without his own 
will. And this is what the Preacher affirms, 
" He added precepts and commands ; If thou 
wilt, &C. &LC." m 

m I object to this distinction,, as I have already done to the 
same in substance (Part ii. Sect, xxi.); nor can I believe it to 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 151 

If these things then be quite clear, we have sec.xiv. 

proved that this passage from Ecclesiasticus ; — 

makes against Freewill, not for it ; as subjecting ^ulTt^" 
man to the precepts and will of God, and with- least does 
drawing him from his own will. But if they be j? ot decide 
not quite clear, I have at least made out, that w ni. * 
this passage cannot be brought to support Free- 
will, as being capable of quite a different interpre- 
tation from theirs : such, for instance, as I have 
just mentioned ; which is so far from being ab- 
surd, that it is most sound, and is consonant to 
the whole tenour of Scripture : whereas theirs is 
repugnant to that testimony, and is fetched from 
this single passage, in contradiction to the whole 
volume besides. We stand firm, and without fear, 
therefore, in our good sense of the words, which 

have been in the mind of the Apocryphal writer. Man had 
not Freewill given to him, in the exercise of one set of his rela- 
tions (those to the creatures, for instance), more than in another. 
Dominion and superiority did not confer Freewill. He was, in 
reality, made accountable for his use of the creatures ; they were 
not given to him to do what he pleased with. But, if it had 
been so, this would not have prevented his liability to have his 
will moved by a power without him. Insubjection and unac- 
countableness are of a perfectly different nature from Freewill. 
A despot may be ruled within, as well as a slave. But, taking 
the writer to mean that he was left to do his own will — this 
does not necessarily imply more than that he was left a free 
agent : and this he was left, with respect to all his relations, 
higher as well as inferior : and so are we. The difference be- 
tween Adam's state before his fall, and ours who have been be- 
gotten out of him since — after having fallen in and with him — 
consisteth not in his having been any way independent of 
God — which we are not — or having had a will that was inac- 
cessible to divine control — which we have not — but only in 
his ignorance of, and freedom from evil. He knew only 
good, and the devil had as yet no part in him. But, even in 
that state, he did only, and only could do, what God willed that 
he should do ; and, though without excuse in choosing evil 
(as having faculties and capacities, and being placed in cir- 
cumstances, by and in which he ought at once to have rejected 
the temptation), did so choose, through the operation (not 
compulsory indeed, but efficacious) and according to the will, of 
Him who doeth all things : whose glory as well as preroga- 
tive it is, to govern a world of free agents. 



152 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



part in. negatives Freewill, until they shall have con- 

firmed their affirmative, harsh, and forced one. 

When the Preacher therefore says, " If thou 
shalt be willing to keep the commandments, and 
to maintain acceptable faith, they shall preserve 
thee;" I do not see how Freewill is proved by 
these words. The verb is in the conjunctive 
mood (* If thou wilt'); which asserts nothing indi- 
catively. Take an example or two. ' If the 
devil be God, he is worthy to be worshipped/ 
< If an ass fly, he has wings/ c If the will be free, 
grace is nothing/ The Preacher should have 
spoken thus, if he had meant to assert the freedom 
of the will : c Man can keep the commandments of 
God;' or, 'Man has power to keep the command- 
ments/ 

But here Diatribe will cavil, that c the Preacher, 
in saying " If thou wilt keep," intimates that there 
is a will in man to keep, and not to keep ; for 
what meaning is there, in saying to a man who 
has no will, 'If thou wilt/ YVould it not be 
ridiculous to say to a man that is blind, ( If 
thou wilt see, thou shalt find a treasure V or to a 
deaf man, c If thou wilt hear, I will tell thee a 
pretty story?' This would be only laughing at 
their misery. 

I answer ; these are the arguments of human 
reason, who is wont to pour out a flood of such 
wise sayings : so that I have not now to dispute 
with the Preacher, but with human reason, about 
an inference. 11 That lady interprets the Scriptures 
of God by her own consequences and syllogisms ; 
drawing them whither she will. I shall undertake 
my office very willingly, and with full confidence 
of success, because I know that she chatters no- 
thing but what is foolish and absurd ; the most of 



SEC xv. 

What 

meant by 
* If thou 
wilt, &c.' 



n De sequeld.'] ( What follows, or is supposed to follow, 
from an assertion proved or admitted, but is not the immediate 
point in debate.' ' Consequence,' ( deduction,' ' inference.' 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 1 53 

all; when she sets about shewing her wisdom on sec. xv. 
sacred subjects. ■ 

Now if, in the first place, I should ask how it is 
proved to be- intimated, or to follow, that man has 
in him a will that is free, as often as it is said 'If 
thou wilt/ 'if thou shalt do/ 'if thou shalt hear/ 
she will say, ' because the nature of words, and 
the custom of speech amongst men, seem to require 
so.' She measures the things and words of God, 
then, by the things and usage of men. What can 
be more perverse than this ; when the one sort of 
things is earthly, and the other heavenly? Thus 
she betrays her foolish self; how she thinks 
nothing, but what is human, of God. 

But what if I should prove, that the nature of 
words and custom of speech, even amongst men, 
is not always such as to make those persons 
objects of ridicule, who have no power to comply 
with the demand, as often as it is said to them, 
' If thou wilt/ ' if thou wilt do/ ' if thou wilt 
hear ?- How often do parents mock their chil- 
dren, by bidding them come to them, or do this or 
that, for the mere purpose of making it appear 
how utterly incapable they are of doing so, and 
of forcing them to call upon the parent for his 
helping hand ! How often does the faithful phy- 
sician command his proud patient to do or leave 
undone things which are either impossible, or 
noxious, that he may drive him to that knowledge 
of his disease, or of his weakness, through making 
trial of himself, to which he could not lead him 
by any other means ! What is more frequent, 
or more common, than words of insult and pro- 
vocation, if we would shew, either to friends or to 
enemies, what they can do, and what they cannot 
do? I mention these things, only by way of ma- 
nifesting to human reason, how foolish she is in 
attaching her inferences to the Scriptures; and 
how blind she is, not to see that these inferences 
are not always realized, even in human words 



154 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. and actions : yet, if she but see them fulfilled now 
~~ and then, presently she rushes forwards with pre- 
cipitation, and pronounces that they take place 
generally, in all human and divine forms of speech. 
Thus she contrives to make an universal of a par- 
ticular, as the manner of her wisdom is. 
sec. xvi. Now, if God deal with us as a father with his 

childen, to shew us our impotency, of which we 

such forms are ig noran t ; or as a faithful physician, to make 
of address, our disease known to us ; or if he insult us, as his 
enemies, who proudly resist his counsel, and by 
proposing laws to us (which is the most con- 
vincing way of doing it), say, ' Do, hear, keep;' 
or, ( if thou shalt hear, if thou shalt be willing, if 
thou shalt do;' will it be a just inference from 
hence, ' So then we can will freely, else God is 
mocking us ?' Is not this rather the inference, 
6 So then God is making trial of us, whether we 
be friends or foes ; that, if we be his friends, he 
may lead us to the knowledge of our impotency, 
by the law; or, if we be proud enemies, then 
indeed he may truly and deservedly insult and 
deride us.' This is the reason why God gives 
laws ; as Paul teaches. p For human nature is so 
blind as not to know its own strength, or rather 
its own disease ; and is, besides, so proud as to 
think that it knows and can do all things. Now, 
God has not any more effectual remedy for this 

° It is not Luther's business to state whence this difference 
of reception arises ; which is only through the free favour of 
God, making some to be his friends, by his Spirit working in 
due season, whilst he leaves others in their native enmity. 
Luther would not hesitate to assign this cause ; but he has 
here only to do with the fact, that the Lord tries and evinces 
these different characters of men, by such calls to obedience. 

p " Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh 
be justified in his sight ; for by the law is the knowledge 
of sin." (Rom. iii. 20.) (< Moreover, the law T entered that the 
offence might abound." (Rom. v. 20.) " Wherefore then 
serveth the law ? It was added because of transgressions." 
(Gal. iii. 19.) <l Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to 
bring us unto Christ." (Ibid. 24.) 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 155 

pride and ignorance, than the propounding of his SC. xvn. 

law; of which I shall say more in its proper 

place. Let it suffice to have taken but a sip of 
the cup here, that I might confute this inference 
of foolish, carnal wisdom, ' If thou wilt — therefore 
the will is free/ Diatribe dreams that man is 
sound and whole; just such as he is in the sight 
of his fellow men, in mere human affairs. Hence 
it is, that she cavils and says, c Man is mocked by 
such words as < if thou wilt/ c if thou wilt do/ 
c if thou wilt hear/ except his will be free/ But 
Scripture declares man to be corrupt and captive ; 
and not only so, but a proud despiser of God, and 
one ignorant of his corruption and captivity. So 
she plucks him by the sleeve, and endeavours to 
awaken him by such words as these, that he may 
own, even by sure experience, how incapable he 
is of any of these things. 

But I will become the assailant nryself in this Diatribe 
conflict; and will ask, ' If thou dost indeed think, jjj 8 ™^ 
Madam Reason, that these inferences stand good (if f er ence. 
thou wilt — therefore thou canst will freely), why dost 
thou not follow them ? Thou sayest, in that approv- 
able opinion of thine, that Freewill cannot will any 
thing good. By what sort of inference, then, will it 
at the same time flow, as you say it does, from this 
passage, ' If thou shalt be willing to keep/ that man 
can will freely, and cannot will freely ? Do sweet 
water and bitter flow from the same fountain ? 
Are you not, even yourself, the greater mocker 
of man here; when you say that he is able to keep 
what he cannot even w r ill, or wish ? It follows 
therefore, that neither do you on your part think 
it a good inference, ' If thou wilt — therefore thou 
canst will freely/ though you maintain it so vehe- 
mently : or else, you do not, from your heart, 
affirm that opinion to be ap provable, which main- 
tains that man cannot will good/ — Reason is so 
entrapped in the inferences and words of her own 
wisdom, as not to know what she says, or what 



156 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. s he is talking- about. Unless it be (as is indeed 
most worthy of her), that Freewill can only be 
defended by such arguments as mutually devour 
and make an end of each other : just as the Midi- 
anites destroyed themselves, by a mutual slaugh- 
ter, whilst making war against Gideon and the 
people of God. 
Proves But let me expostulate, still more at large, with 

too much. this wise Diatribe. The Preacher does not say, 
* If thou shalt have a desire or endeavour to keep, 
which is, nevertheless, not to be ascribed to thine 
jwn powers;' as you collect from his words; but 
6 If thou wilt keep the commandments, they shall 
preserve thee/ Now, if we would draw infer- 
ences, such as you in your wisdom are wont to do, 
we shall infer, * therefore man can keep the com- 
mandments :' and thus, we shall leave not only a 
little bit of a desire, or a sort of endeavourling, in 
man; but shall ascribe to him the whole fulness 
and abundance of power to keep the command- 
ments. Else, the Preacher would be mocking the 
misery of man, by commanding him to keep, when 
he knew him to be unable to keep. Nor would it 
be enough, that he should have desire and endea- 
vour:, not even thus would the Preacher escape 
the suspicion of using mockery; he must inti- 
mate that he has in him a power of keeping. 
Confirms _g u t let us suppose this desire and endeavour 
ism? Sian " °f Freewill to be something. What shall we say 
to those (the Pelagians, I mean) who, from this 
passage, were used to deny grace altogether, and 
to ascribe every thing to Freewill ? Without 
doubt, the Pelagians have gained the victory, if 
Diatribe's consequence be allowed. For the 
words of the Preacher import keeping, and not 
merely desiring or endeavouring. Now, if you 
shall deny to the Pelagians the inference of * keep- 
ing;' they will, in their turn, much more properly 
deny to you the inference of c endeavouring : 9 and, 
if you take away complete Freewill from them, 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 157 

they will take from you that little particle of it sc. xvn. 

which you say remains; not allowing you to 

claim for a particle, what you have denied to the 
whole substance. So that, whatever you urge 
against the Pelagians, who ascribe a whole to 
Freewill from this passage, will come much more 
forcibly from us, in contradiction to that little bit 
of a desire which constitutes your Freewill. q The 
Pelagians too will so far agree with us as to ad- 
mit, that, if their opinion cannot be proved from 
this passage, much less can any other be proved 
from it : since, if the cause is to be pleaded by 
inferences, the Preacher makes the most strongly 
of all for the Pelagians; forasmuch as he speaks 
expressly of entire keeping. 6 If thou wilt keep 
the commandments/ Nay, he speaks of faith also : 
' If thou wilt keep acceptable faith/ So that, by 
the same inference, we ought to have it in our 
power to keep faith also : howbeit, this faith is 
the alone and rare gift of God; as Paul says/ 

In short, since so many opinions are enumerated 
in support of Freewill, and there is not one of 
them but what seizes upon this passage of Eccle- 
siasticus for itself, yet those opinions are different 
and contrary ; it must follow, that they deem the 
Preacher contradictory and opposite, each to the 
other severally, in the self-same words. They 

i Totum Uhero arbitrio tribuentibus.'] The Pelagians spake 
more wisely than many who oppose them. They maintained 
1 the integrity of Freewill ;' an absolute power of willing good. 
Freewill is Freewill ; and, if there be any thing of it in man, 
there is the whole of it. 

r Luther refers, no doubt, to Ephes. ii. 8. Ci For by grace 
are ye saved through faith ; and that not of yourselves : it is 
the gift of God." His interpretation, if I understand the text 
aright, is incorrect : it is not 'faith' that is spoken of as the gift 
of God, but 'his whole salvation.' The truth of his affirma- 
tion, however, though not fairly deducible from this text, 
is unquestionable ; and may be shewn, as well from particular 
testimonies, as from the general tenour of Scripture. Matt, 
xvi. 17. John vi. 44, 65. Eph.es. i. 19. Coloss. ii. 12. (to 
which many others might be added) are decisive. 



158 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART III. 



SC.XVIII. 

Conclude 
that Eccle- 
siasticus 
proves no- 
thing for 
Freewill, 
whether 
what is 
said be un- 
derstood of 
Adam, or 
of men 
generally. 



cari; therefore, prove nothing from him. Still, if 
that inference be admitted, he makes for the Pela- 
gians only, against all the rest : and so makes 
against Diatribe 5 who cuts her own throat here. 8 

But I renew my first assertion; viz. that this 
passage from Ecclesiasticus patronises none ab- 
solutely of those who maintain Freewill ; but 
opposes them all. For that inference, c if thou 
wilt — therefore thou canst/ is inadmissible; and 
the true understanding of such passages as these 
is, that, by this word and the like, man is warned 
of his impotency ; which, as being ignorant and 
proud, if it were not for these divine warnings, 
he would neither own nor feel. 

And here I speak, not of the first man only, but 
of any man, and every man; though it be of little 
consequence, whether you understand it of the 
first man, or of any other whatsoever. For, al- 
though the first man was not impotent through the 
presence of grace; still God shews him abun- 
dantly by this precept, how impotent. he would be 
in the absence of grace. Now if that man, hav- 
ing the Spirit/ was not able to will good ; that is, 

s Suo ipsius gladio jugulatur.*\ By quoting a passage for 
herself, which directly contradicts her. 

1 Cum adesset Spiritus.~\ Luther assumes that Adam, in his 
creation state, had the Spirit ; of which there is no proof, and 
the contrary seems evidently to have been the fact. Made per- 
fect after his kind, it was no part of his creation dues or gifts 
to have the Spirit. He was formed to glorify God, as his 
creature : which implies a substance distinct from, and exist- 
ing in a state of severance from his Creator ; like a piece of 
mechanism put out of the hand of its artificer. He was left 
to himself, therefore, having his own high moral powers and 
acquirements, but no extrinsic aid ; to make trial and to shew, 
what man in his entireness is, and w r hat he would become 
through temptation, if not inhabited by his Creator. This trial 
and manifestation would furnish an inference with respect to 
other creatures ; even as the same inference had already been 
furnished by the angelic nature. But this trial could not have 
been made, and this exhibition therefore could not have been 
effected, if he had possessed the Spirit ; or, in other words, if he 
had been united to God. So united, he could not have been 
overcome. That union, therefore (as Luther, and others with 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 159 

obedience ; while as his will was yet new, and sc.xvin. 

good was newly proposed to him/ because the 

Spirit did not add it; what could we, who have 
not the Spirit, do towards good, which we have 
lost? It was shewn therefore, in that first man, 
by a terrible example, for the bruising under of 
our pride, what our Freewill can do when left to 
itself; yea, when urged and increased continually, 
yet more and more, by the Spirit of God. The 
first man could not attain to a more enlarged 
measure of the Spirit, of which he possessed the 
firstfruits, but fell from the possession of those 
firstfruits. How should we, in our fallen state, 
have power to recover those firstfruits, which 
have been taken from us ? Especially, since Satan 
now reigns in us with full power; who laid the 
first man prostrate by a mere temptation, when 
he had not yet got to reign in him. — It were impos- 
sible to maintain a stronger debate against Free- 
will, than by discussing this text of Ecclesiasticus, 
in connection with the fall of Adam : but I have not 
room for such a descant here, and perhaps the 
matter will present itself elsewhere. Meanwhile, 
let it suffice to have shewn, that the Preacher says 
just nothing in support of Freewill here (which its 
advocates, however, account their principal testi- 
mony) ; and that this and similar passages, ' If 

him, would say), was dissolved } the Spirit which he had 
possessed was withdrawn during his temptation. Then, was 
he any longer the same substance, or person, which had re- 
ceived the command ? On this representation, the command 
was given him, having the Spirit ; and he was tried, not having 
the Spirit. — So demonstrable is it, that Adam had not the Holy 
Ghost 5 whose in-dwelling ' doth not appertain to the perfection 
of man's nature.' — But the argument from Adam's state to ours 
is quite strong enough, without this unwarranted assumption of 
Luther's. He that was just come out of the hands of his 
Creator, made in his image, and pronounced by him to be 
f very good,' could not stand against a single and solitary temp- 
tation : what should we do therefore ? 

u As opposed to that ' stale and rejected' thing which good 
is to us. 



160 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. thou wilt/ c if thou wilt hear/ 'if thou wilt do/ 

— • declare not what man can do, but what he ought 

to do. v 
sec.xix. Another passage is cited by our Diatribe from 

the fourth chapter of Genesis, where the Lord 

Gen.iv. 7- says to Cain, "The desire of sin shall be subject 

consi eie . ^ thee, an( | thou shalt rule over it." 'It is shewn 

here, says Diatribe, that the motions of the mind 

towards evil may be overcome, and do not induce 

a necessity of sinning/ 

This saying, ' that the motions of the mind to- 
wards evil may be overcome/ is ambiguous; but 
the general sentiment, the consequence, and the 
facts compel us to this understanding of it, x that, 
'it is the property of Freewill to overcome its own 
motions towards evil, and that those motions do 
not induce a necessity of sinning/ Why is it 
again omitted here, ' which is not ascribed to Free- 
will' ? y What need is there of the Spirit, what need 
of Christ, what need of God, if Freewill can over- 
come the motions of the mind towards evil ? What 
has again become of that appro vable opinion, 
which says that Freewill cannot even will good ? 
Here, however, victory over evil is ascribed to 

v I cannot help regretting that Luther, after the example of 
his opponent, has given so much space to this Apocryphal tes- 
timony from Ecclesiasticus. I could have been glad, if he had 
not only stood upon his right, which he hints at in the opening 
of his discussion, declining to answer ; but had used the 
occasion to protest against the honour put upon this book, 
and the rest of its brothers and sisters, by binding them up in 
our Bibles and reading them in our churches. — The collateral 
matter of the argumentation, however, is highly valuable ; 
and Luther could afford to make his adversary a present of an 
argument. Here, indeed, he may almost be said to have taken a 
culverin to kill flies withal. For, is it not Adam, clearly, of whom 
the Preacher speaks ; whose will is not the matter in debate ? 
and what, as we have seen, is said even of that will, which 
might not be said of ours ? It was left free to choose ; and if 
it should choose good, good would result from that good. 

x Vi sententue, consequential et rerum hue cogiiur. 

y Referring to the f satis probabilis opinio { ' sed non relin- 
quat, quod suis viribus ascribat.' See above, Sect. vii. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 161 

this substance, which neither wills nor wishes sec.xix. 
good. Our Diatribe's carelessness is beyond all ' 
measure here. — Hear the truth of the matter in 
few words. I have said before, man has it shewn 
to him, by such expressions as these, not what he 
can do, but what he ought to do. Cain is told, 
therefore, that he ought to rule over sin, and to 
keep its lustings in subjection to himself. But 
this he neither did, nor could do, seeing, he was 
now pressed to the earth by the foreign" yoke of 
Satan. It is notorious, that the Hebrews fre- 
quently use the future indicative for the impera- 
tive : as in the twentieth chapter of Exodus ; 'Thou 
shalt not have any other Gods/ ' Thou shalt not 
kill/ 'Thou shalt not commit adultery / and num- 
berless such like instances. On the contrary, if 
the words be taken indicatively, according to 
their literal meaning/ they would be so many 
promises of God, who cannot lie ; and so, nobody 
would commit sin, and there would be no need 
therefore of these precepts. In fact, our trans- 
lator would have rendered the words better in this 
place, if he had said, • Let its desire be subject to 
thee, and do thou rule over iV Just as it ought 
also to have been said to the woman, ' Be subject 
to thy husband, and let him rule over thee/ — 
That it was not said indicatively to Cain, appears 
from this : it would in that case have been a divine 
promise ; but it was not a divine promise, for 
the very reverse happened, and the very reverse 
was done by Cain. b 

2 Alieno imperio.~\ c A dominion out of himself ; ' so that he 
was no longer his own master. 

a Ut sonant.'] The sound, as opposed to the sense, or real 
import. 

b I admit Luther's principle, but demur to the application of 
it, both here and in the parallel to which he refers, Gen. hi. 16. 
The original passage is one of great difficulty. I incline to the 
interpretation which our authorized version gives to it ; and 
refer the words which are immediately under remark, as that 
appears to do, not to sin, but to Abel. " If thou doest well, shalt 

M 



162 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. Your third passage is from Moses, " I have set 

* before thy face the way of life and of death ; 

SECXX - choose that which is good/' &c. &c. * What 
Deut xxx could be said more plainly/ says Diatribe? 'He 
19. con- ' leaves freedom of choice to man/ 
sidered. j answer, what can be plainer than that you are 

blind here? Prithee, where does he leave free- 
dom of choice ? In saying, c choose V So then, 
as soon as Moses says ' choose/ it comes to pass 
that they do choose ! Again, therefore, the Spirit 
is not necessary : and since you so often repeat 
and hammer in c the same things, let me also be 

thou not be accepted \ and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at 
the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule 
over him." Well, and not well, have relation to the then 
known will of God. Was Cain ignorant, with what sort of 
offering God was to be approached ? — Whatever might be said 
of later times, Cain must have heard all about Eden, the ser- 
pent and the woman, the serpent's seed and the woman's 
seed 5 and must have seen the coats of skins. Cain despised 
fC the way 5" he would none of Christ. — Then, God's words 
are adapted to quiet, and to instruct him. We know that a 
man can no more come by Christ, except it be given him from 
above, than he can come by the law. But this was not the 
thing to be shewn him ; he was to be reminded of the alone 
way of access, that he might make the fullest developement of 
himself, if he should continue to neglect and despise it : and, 
since jealous and angry fears were now arising in his mind with 
respect to his brother ; chiefly, lest he should lose the earthly 
superiority attached to his primogeniture ; he is pacified with 
an assurance (connected, doubtless, with the fore-mentioned 
condition), that this dominion should remain in his hands -, an 
assurance conveyed in words very nearly resembling those 
by which Eve was warned of her subjection to Adam. The 
Septuagint gives another turn to the former part of the verse, 
but clearly refers the latter as I do ; and so in Gen. iii. 16. — 
According to this view, the words of this text have nothing to 
do with Freewill, though it seems the Hebrew Rabbins, as 
well as Luther and Erasmus, thought they had. (See Pole's 
Synops. in loc.) — If they must be referred to sin, not Abel ; 
Luther's interpretation is correct, and his answer unanswer- 
able. — If the words be taken indicatively , they are a promise 
of God, which was broken as soon as made. 

c lnculces.~\ A figurative expression from e treading in with 
the feet j ' hence applied to those efforts by which, like the 
pavier ramming down his stones, we aim to drive or beat our 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 163 

allowed to say the same thing many times over. If sec. xx. 

there be freeness of choice d in the soul, why has 

your approvable opinion said that the free will 
cannot will good ? Can it choose without will- 
ing, or against its will? — But let us hear your 
simile. 

It would be ridiculous to say to a man standing 
in a street where two ways meet, c you see two 
ways, enter which you please ; ' when only one is 
open. 

This is just what I said before, about the argu- 
ments of carnal reason : she thinks that man is 
mocked by an impossible precept ; whereas we 
say, he is admonished and excited by it to see 
his own impotency. Truly then, we are in this 
sort of street ; but only one way is open to us : or 
rather, no way is open. 6 But it is shewn us by 
the law, how impossible it is for us to choose the 
one — that leading to good, I mean — except God 
give his Holy Spirit: how broad and easy the 
other is, if God allow us to walk in it. Without 
mockery then, and with all necessary gravity, it 
would be said to a man standing in the street, 
c enter which of the two you please ; ' if, either 
he should have a mind to appear strong in his 
own eyes, being infirm ; or should maintain that 
neither of these ways is shut against him. 

The words of the law then, are spoken not to 
affirm the power of the will, but to enlighten blind 
reason ; that she may see what a nothing her light 

meaning into a person's head. Erasmus not only repeats, but 
pursues long desultory arguments, heaping one upon another, 
to prove his point. 

d Lihertas eligendi.'] Choice there must be, or there is no 
will : but that choice may be made under a wrong bias. This 
is properly the question of Freewill ; viz. : whether the will be 
under such a bias, or not. 

e Imo nulla patet.'] Referring to what he has said before, 
c about God's doing every thing ; ' and our doing all we do, by 
necessity. So, even the way of evil is only broad and easy, 
* si Deus permittat.' 

m2 



164 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. is, and what a nothing the power of the will is. 

" By the law is the knowledge of sin/' says 

Paul ; he does not say the c abolition/ or the 
c avoidance,' of it. The principle 1 " and power 
of the law has for -its essence the affording of 
knowledge, and that only of sin; not the display- 
ing of any power, or the conferring of any. 

For this g knowledge, neither is power, nor 
confers power, but instructs ; and shews that there 
is no power in that quarter, and how great is the 
infirmity in that quarter. For what else can the 
knowledge of sin be, but the knowledge of our 
infirmity and of our wickedness. Nor does he 
say, c by the law comes the knowledge of virtue, 
or good : 9 but all that the law does, according to 
Paul, is to cause sin to be known. 

This is that passage from which I drew my 
answer, c that by the words of the law man is ad- 
monished and instructed what he ought to do, 
not what he can do ;' that is, to know his sin, not 
to believe that he has some power. So that, as 
often as you cast the words of the law in my teeth, 
I will answer you, my Erasmus, with this saying 
of Paul; "By the law is the knowledge of sin/' 
not power in the will. Take now some of your 
larger Concordances, and heap together all the 
imperative verbs into one chaos (so they be not 
words of promise, but words of exaction and law), 
and I shall presently shew you, that by these is 
always intimated not what men do, or can do, but 
what they ought to do. Your grammar-masters, 
and boys in the streets, know this ; that by verbs 

f Tota ratio et virtus legis.~] Rat. a word of very extensive and 
various signification, expresses ' the nature, order, object, 
structure, and relations of any substance.' e Principle' seems 
best to express it here : as comprehending* both design and 
constitution. Rat. et virt. The law is both framed for this 
purpose, and effects it. 

s I insert e this / because the two ibis, which follow, make 
it plain, that it is not knowledge in general, but this knowledge 
in particular, of which he speaks. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 165 

of the imperative mood nothing else is expressed, secxxi. 

but what ought to be done : what is done, or ' 

may be done, must be declared by indicative 
verbs. 

How comes it then, that you theologians, as if 
you had fallen into a state of second childhood, 
no sooner get hold of a single imperative verb, 
than you are foolish enough to infer an indicative ; 
as if an act were no sooner commanded, than it 
becomes straightway, even of necessity, a thing 
done, or at least practicable. For how many things 
happen between the cup and the lip, 11 to pre- 
vent what you have ordered, and what was more- 
over quite practicable, from taking place : such a 
distance is there between imperative and indica- 
tive verbs, in common and most easy trans- 
actions. But you 1 — when the things enjoined, 
instead of being near to us as the lip is to the 
cup, are more distant than heaven from earth — 
and, moreover, impracticable — so suddenly make 
indicatives for us out of imperatives, that you will 
have the things to have been kept, done, chosen, 
and fulfilled, or about to be so, by our own 
power : as soon as ever the word of command has 
been given, e do, keep, choose.' k 

In the fourth place, you adduce many like verbs Passages 
of choosing, refusing, keeping; as, 'if thou shalt f *™£* at ' 
keep/ c if thou shalt turn aside/ ' if thou shalt considered. 
choose/ &c. &c. from the third 1 and from the 
thirtieth chapter of Deuteronomy. c All these 

h Inter os et o§hm.~] ' The mouth and the cake ;' but I have 
preferred the more common proverb. 

' Et vos.'] It would be read with more spirit in the form of 
a question : — ' And do you so suddenly make, &c. ?' 

k Luther is abundant in reply to this passage from Deu- 
teronomy. 1. It proves too much. 2. Not ridiculous, if the 
way be supposed shut. 3. The law gives knowledge of sin. 
4. Imperative verbs are not indicatives, 

1 The reference to Deut. iii. appears to be incorrect : these 
expressions are all found in the xxxth ; and the like to them 
in xxvii. xxviii. xxix. But chap. iii. is a mere narrative. 



16G BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. expressions, you say, would be unseasonable, if 

man's will were not free to good.' 

I answer, you also are very unseasonable, my 
Diatribe, in collecting Freewill from these verbs ! 
For you professed to prove only desire and 
endeavour in your Freewill, and adduce no pas- 
sage which proves such endeavour, but a string 
of passages, which, if your consequence were 
valid, would assign ' a whole* to Freewill." 1 Let 
us, then, distinguish here again between the 
words adduced from Scripture, and the conse- 
quence which Diatribe has appended to them. 
The words adduced are imperative, and only 
express what ought to be done. For Moses 
does not say, 3^011 have strength or power to 
choose, but ' choose, keep, do/ He delivers 
commands to do, but does not describe man's 
power of doing. But the consequence added by 
this sciolous Diatribe infers, ' therefore man can 
do these things ; else they would be enjoined in 
vain/ To which the answer is, < Madam Dia- 
tribe, you make a bad inference, and you do not 
prove your consequence : it is because you are 
blind and lazy, that you think this consequence 
follows, and has been proved/ These injunc- 
tions, however, are not delivered unseasonably, 
or in vain ; but are so many lessons by which 
vain and proud man may learn his own diseased 
state of impotency, if he try to do what is com- 
manded. So again, your simile is to no purpose, 
where you say; 

^Else it would be just as if you should say 
to a man, who is so tied and bound, that he 
can only stretch out his arm to the left, See ! 
you have a cup of most excellent wine at your 
right hand, and a cup of poison at your left : 

m Totum, opposed to particula ejus reliqua ; * that small re- 
maining particle of Freewill which Erasmus professed to sup- 
port and prove :' his texts would make it an integer, not a 
fraction. See above. Sect. iv. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 167 

stretch out your baud to whichsoever side you SE. xxn. 
please/ ■ ■ 

I have a uotion that you are mightily tickled 
with these similes. But you do not perceive all 
the while, that, if your similes stand good, they 
prove much more than you have undertaken to 
prove ; nay, that they prove what you deny, and 
would have to be disapproved ; namely, that Free- 
will can do every thing. For, throughout your 
whole treatise, forgetting that you have said 
r Freewill can do nothing without grace/ you 
prove that c Freewill can do every thing without 
grace/ Yes, this is what you make out, at last, by 
your consequences and similes, that, either Free- 
will, left to herself, can do the things which are 
said and enjoined, or they are idly, ridiculously, 
and unseasonably enjoined. Howbeit, these are 
but the old songs of the Pelagians ; which even 
the Sophists have exploded, and you have yourself 
condemned. Meanwhile, you show by this forget- 
fulness and bad memory of yours, how entirely 
you are both ignorant of the cause, and indif- 
ferent to it. For what is more disgraceful to a 
rhetorician, than to be continually discussing and 
proving things foreign to the point at issue \ nay, 
to be continually haranguing against both his 
cause and himself ? n 

I do therefore affirm again, that the words of HIs Sci4 P; 
Scripture adduced by you are imperative words, n otSng; T 
and neither prove any thing, nor determine any his addi- 
thing, on the subject of human power, but pre- scripture 
scribe certain things to be done, and to be left too much! 
undone: whilst your consequences or additions, 



n Contra causam et seipsumJ] Not only in opposition to the 
cause lie was advocating, but even to his own admissions and 
assertions. — But what a string of charges is here ! — Sciolist! a 
mere smatterer in learning and knowledge. — Pelagian ! which 
every ' would-be' orthodox disclaims — negligent, desultory, un- 
discerning, heartless! quam nihil vel. intelligas vel afficiaris 
causae ! 



1G8 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. and your similes, prove this, if they prove any 

thing, that Freewill can do every thing without 

grace. This proposition, however, is not one which 
you have undertaken to prove, but have even de- 
nied : so that proofs of this kind are nothing else 
but the strongest disproofs. For let me try now, 
whether it be possible to rouse Diatribe from her 
lethargy. Supposel should argue thus : when Moses 
says, i choose life, and keep the commandment;' ex- 
cept a man can choose life and keep the command- 
ment, it is ridiculous in Moses to enjoin this upon 
man: should I by this argument have proved, that 
Freewill can do nothing good ; or that it has endea- 
vour, but not of its own power ? ° No, I should 
have proved, by a pretty bold sort of comparison/ 
that, either man can choose life and keep the com- 
mandment, as he is ordered to do ; or Moses is a 
ridiculous teacher. JBut who would dare to call 
Moses a ridiculous teacher? It follows therefore, 
that man can do the things commanded him. 
This is the way, in which Diatribe is continually 
arguing against her own thesis ; by which, she 
engaged not to maintain any such position as this, 
but to show a certain power of endeavouring in 
Freewill : of which, however, she makes little 
mention in the whole series of her arguments, so 
far is she from proving it. Nay, she rather proves 
the contrary : so as to be herself rather, the ridi- 
culous speaker and arguer every where. q 

° Sine suis viribus.~\ He plays upon ' the approvable opinion ;' 
which leaves endeavour, but does not leave it to be ascribed to 
Freewill' s own power. 

p Satis fort i contmtione.~\ Cont. is sometimes used in a rheto- 
rical sense to express one of the parts of an oration ; ' dispu- 
tatio sive disceptatio,' opposed to ' quaestio ' or c controversia ;' 
what might properly be called c the argumentation:' but is 
here used in another rhetorical sense, to express ' contrast, 
comparison, or antithesis j ' ( Moses's folly,' set in array against 
( man's power.' 

^ She imputed this to Luther : she would make either him 
or Moses absurd ; the real absurdity lay in adducing argu- 
ments, which either proved nothing, or proved the opposite. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 169 

With respect to its being ridiculous, according sc. xxn. 
to the simile you have introduced, that a man tied ~7~ 7" 
by the right arm should be bidden to stretch out f^and 
his hand to the right, when he can only stretch it tied. 
out to the left; would it be ridiculous, I ask — if 
a man, who was tied even by both hands, should 
proudly maintain, or ignorantly presume, that he 
could do what he pleased on both sides of him — 
to bid such a man stretch out his hand to which- 
soever side he likes ; not with the design of laugh- 
ing at his captive state, but that the false pre- 
sumption of his own liberty and power may be 
evinced, or that his ignorance of his captivity and 
misery may be made notorious to himself. Dia- 
tribe is always dressing up for us a man of her own 
invention, who either can do as he is bidden, or 
at least knows that he cannot. But such a man 
is no where to be found : and if there were such 
a man, then it would indeed be true, that, either 
impossibilities are enjoined ridiculously, or the 
Spirit of Christ is given in vain. r 

But the Scripture sets before us a man, who is Uses of 
not only bound, wretched, captive, sick, dead, t !j e la ^ 
but who adds this plague of blindness (through pfacica- 
the agency of Satan his prince) to his other ble - 
plagues, and so thinks himself at liberty, happy, 
unshackled, able, in health, alive. For Satan 
knows, that, if man were acquainted with his 
own misery, he should not be able to retain a 
single individual of the race in his kingdom; be- 
cause God could not choose but at once pity and 
help him, when now he had come to recognise his 
misery, and cry out for relief: seeing, he is a 
God so greatly extolled throughout the whole 
Scripture, as being near to the contrite in heart, 
that, in the sixty-first chapter of Isaiah (vv. 1 — 3.), 
Christ declares himself to have been even sent 

r If he can do what is bidden, there is no need of the Spirit ; 
if he knows he cannot, there is no longer any use for pre- 
scribing it. 



170 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. into the world by Him, for the purpose of preach- 
ing the Gospel to the poor, and healing the 
broken-hearted. So that, it is Satan's business to 
keep men from the recognition of their own 
misery; and to keep them in the presumption of 
their own ability to do all that is commanded. 
Bui: the legislator Moses's business is the very 
opposite of this : he is to lay open man's misery 
to him by the law, that, having hereby broken his 
heart, and confounded him with the knowledge of 
himself, he may prepare him for grace, 3 and send 
him to Christ, and so he may be saved for ever. 
What the law does, therefore, is not ridiculous, 
but exceedingly serious and necessary. 1 

Those who are now brought to understand 
these matters, understand at the same time, with- 
out any difficulty, that Diatribe proves absolutely 
nothing, by her whole series of arguments ; whilst 
she does nothing but get together a parcel of 
imperative verbs from the Scriptures, of which 
she knows not either the meaning or the use. 
Having done so, she next adds her own conse- 
quences and carnal similes, and thus mixes up 
such a potent cake, 11 that she asserts and proves 
more than she had advanced, and argues against 
her very self. It would not be necessary, there- 
fore, to pursue my rapid course v through her 

s Ad gratiam.'] Not, what is often understood by grace, ( the 
gift of the Spirit ;-' but, what grace truly is in its essence, ' the 
free favour of God.' 

* Ridicula. .seria. . necessarla.~\ Ridiculous may have respect 
either to the laugher, or the laughed at ; what we do in sport, 
or suffer as objects of sport. The law neither mocks, nor makes 
a fool of herself, though her ordinances be impossible to man 5 
neither mocks, by calling merely to expose ; nor subjects her- 
self to derision, by speaking where she has nothing to gain. 

u Off am seems to be some allusion to Cerberus. yEn. vi. 420. 

v Percurrere.~] Luther applies the same term to his review of 
Erasmus's preface, implying short and lively animadversion 
rather than grave and elaborate research. So, just afterwards, 
/ recenserej' ' enumeration,' or f recital,' rather than f inves- 
tigation.' 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 171 

several proofs any further ; since they are all dis- sc.xxm. 

missed by dismissing one, as all resting upon one 

principle. Still, I shall go on to recount some 
of them, that I may drown her in the very flood 
in which she was meaning to drown me. x 

In Isaiah i. (ver. 19.) we read, "If ye shall isaiahi.19. 
have been willing, and shall have heard, ye shall x j lx \8 ) l * 
eat the good of the land:" where it would have m.'i.V. 
been more consistent, as Diatribe thinks, to have and some 
said, ' If J be willing ; ' ' If I be unwilling ; ! on ° ag g S ^ 
the supposition of the will not being free. sidered; 

The answer to this suggestion is sufficiently ^much- 
manifest, from what has been said above. But no distinct 
what congruity would there be, in its being said tion be " 
here, ' If I will, ye shall eat of the good of the an d Gos- 
land V Does Diatribe, of her excessive wisdom, P el * & c - 
imagine that the good of the land could be eaten 
against the will of God; or that it is a rare and 
new thing for us to receive good, only if he 
will? , 

So in Isaiah xxx. y " If ye seek, seek ; turn ye, 
and come." ' To what purpose is it that we ex- 
hort those who have no power at all over them- 
selves? Is it not just as if we should say to a 
man bound with fetters, move yourself that way ;' 
says Diatribe ? 

Say rather, to what purpose is it that you 
quote passages, which, of themselves, prove 
nothing, but by adding a consequence ; that is, 
by corrupting their meaning; ascribe every thing 
to Freewill : whereas only a sort of endeavour, 
and that not ascribable to Freewill, was to be 
proved? 

x Obruatur copid, seems to be some allusion to the dra- 
gon, Rev. xii. 15. " And the serpent cast out of his mouth 
water, as a flood, after the woman, that he might cause her to 
be carried away of the flood." 

y The reference seems to be to verse 21, where our trans- 
lation has it, (( And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, 
•saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right 
hand, and when ye turn to the left. 1 ' 



172 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. < I would say the same of that testimony in 
Isaiah xlv. " Assemble yourselves, and come ; 
turn to me, and ye shall be saved :" and of that in 
Isaiah lii. " Arise, arise, shake thyself from the 
dust, loose the chains from off thy neck." Of that 
also in Jeremiah xv. " If thou wilt turn, I will 
turn thee; and if thou wilt separate the precious 
from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth." But 
Zechariah makes still more evident mention of the 
endeavour of Freewill, and of the grace which is 
prepared for the endeavourer. He says, " Turn 
ye to me, saith the Lord of Hosts, and I will turn 
to you, saith the Lord. 5 ' 2 

In these passages, our Diatribe discovers no 
difference at all between law words and gospel 
words. So blind and ignorant is she forsooth, 
that she does not see what is Law and what is 
Gospel. Out of the whole of Isaiah, she brings 
not a single law word, except that first one, ' If 
ye shall have been willing/ All the other pas- 
sages are made up of gospel words ; by which the 
contrite and afflicted are called to take comfort 
from offers of grace. a But Diatribe makes law 

2 Isa. xlv. 20. lii. 1, 2. Jerem.xv. 19. The reference 'made 
to Zechariah seems properly to belong to Malachi iii. 7. See 
above, Part ii. Sect. xiii. note °. 

a Verba gratia oblatce.'] The expression, ' offers of grace,' is 
exceptionable, as implying freeness of choice ; in direct con- 
trariety to Luther's position and arguments. The truth is, 
that, whilst he abhorred free choice, he liked free offers. I could 
have been glad if he had expressed his meaning more defi- 
nitely; which is little else than e the promises of God received 
in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scrip- 
ture 5' that is, received ' as promises of free favour made to 
persons of a certain character ; and not to individuals, as such.' 
What but these are the very and legitimate stay of God's eter- 
nally foreknown, elect, predestinated, and now quickened 
child, in the day of his tearing and smiting ? Is he to hear a 
voice, or see a vision, or receive some providential token, per- 
sonal to himself; before he presumes to call upon the name 
of the Lord ? Are not these, <c Ho, every one that thirsteth y[ 
ff To this man will I look $'•' " Come unto me, all ye that tra- 
vail and are heavy-laden •** ff The same Lord over all is rich 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 173 

words of them. And pray what good will he do sc.xxin. 

in theology, or in the Scriptures, who has not yet 

got so far as to know what the Law is, and what 
the Gospel is ; or, if he does know, disdains to 
observe the difference ? Such an one must con- 
found every thing ; heaven and hell, life and 
death; and will take no pains to know any 
thing at all about Christ. I shall admonish my 
Diatribe more copiously upon this subject hereafter. 
Look now at those words of Jeremiah and 
Zechariah : c If thou wilt turn, I will turn thee y 
and, ' Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you.' 
Does it follow, ' Turn ye/ therefore ye can turn ? 
Does it follow, c Love the Lord thy God with all 
thine heart,' therefore thou shalt be able to love 
him with all thine heart? What is the conclu- 
sion, then, from arguments of this kind, but that 
Freewill needs not the grace of God, for she can 
do every thing by her own power ? How much 
more properly are the words taken, just as they 
stand ! b c If thou shalt have been turned, I also 
will turn thee/ that is, if thou shalt leave off 
sinning, I also will leave off punishing ; and if, 
when thou art converted, thou shalt lead a good 
life, I also will do thee good, and will turn thy 
captivity and thy evils. But it does not follow 

unto all that call upon Him" — his warrant for drawing near, 
and his first words of consolation ? — But these, at last, are not 
4 offers ' of grace ; by which God throws himself, as it were, 
at the knees and feet of his creatures — subjecting himself to a 
refusal- nay, with full assurance that he must receive one, 
except he superadd a special and distinct impulse of his own 
to secure acceptance — but testimonies of his own mouth, and 
hand, and ordinances, borne to those souls which he, in his 
own good time, has made ready to welcome them ; that he 
will bind up, and heal, and own, these poor destitutes, amidst 
the gathered remnant of his heritage. 

b Verba, ut posita sunt."] ' Without additions,' such as Eras- 
mus's. 

c I do not know that any reasonable objection can be made 
to Luther's paraphrase of Jeremiah xv. 19, and Malachi (he 
calls him Zechariah) iii. 7. But the quotation from Jeremiah 



174 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. from these words, that a man can turn to God by 

his own power ; nor do the words affirm this : 

they simply say, ' If thou art converted ;' admo- 
nishing man what he ought to be. Now, when 
he shall have known and seen this, he would seek 
the power, which he hath not, from the source 
whence he might have it, d if Diatribe's Leviathan 
(her appendage and consequence, I mean) did not 
come in the way, saying, ' It would in vain be 
said, 6i Turn ye/' except a man could turn by his 
own power.' — What sort of a saying this is, and 
what it proves, has been declared abundantly. 

It is the effect of stupor or lethargy to suppose 
that Freewill is established by those words, 'Turn 
ye,' c If thou shalt turn,' and the like ; and not to 
perceive, that, upon the same principle, it would 
also be established by this saying, u Thou shalt 
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart;" since 
the demand in the one case, is equivalent to the 
command* in the other. Nor is the love of God, 
and of all his commandments, less required than our 
own conversion ; since the love of God is our true 
conversion. And yet no man argues Freewill 
from that commandment of love, whilst all argue 

seems perfectly out of place : it is a personal matter between 
the Lord and his Prophet, a converted man : what has this to 
do, then, with the question of Freewill ? 

d Qucerat uncle possit.'] I have been inclined to connect 
these words with the preceding sentence ; c by which he is 
admonished what he ought to be ; and having understood and 
discovered this, is admonished to seek the power which he 
hath not whence he might get it ; if Diatribe should not inter- 
vene,' &c.< — The punctuation, however, forbids this connection, 
and it does not appear to be Luther's meaning. He imputes it 
to Diatribe's false suggestion, if man, warned that he ought to 
turn to God, does not find out his own impotency, and seek his 
conversion from God. But there is much more that goes to 
this seeking, than Luther seems to include in it: under the clear- 
est light, men will still resist conviction ; and the heart to seek, 
is as much a gift, as conversion itself. 

e More literally, ' since the meaning of the commander and 
the demander is equal on both sides.' 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 175 

it from those words, c If tliou shalt be willing/ sc.xxiv. 

< If thou shalt hear/ ' Turn/ and the like. If 

then it folio weth not from that saying, c Love the 
Lord thy God with all thy heart/ that Freewill 
is any thing, or has any power, assuredly neither 
doth it from those, c If thou wilt/ ' If thou near- 
est/ * Turn ye/ and the like : which either de- 
mand less, or demand less vehemently, than that 
i Love God/ ' Love the Lord/ f 

Whatever reply, therefore, is made to that 
saying, c Love God/ forbidding to conclude Free- 
will from it; the same shall be made to all other 
expressions of command or demand, in forbid- 
dance of the same conclusion : namely, that by the 
command to love is shewn 6 the matter of the 
law/- what we ought to do; but not the power of 
the human will, what we can do ; or rather, what 
we cannot do. The same is shewn by all other 
expressions of demand. It is evident, that even 
the schoolmen, w r ith the exception of the Scotists 
and the Moderns/ 1 assert, that man cannot love 
God with his whole heart. From whence it fol- 
lows, that neither can he fulfil any of the other 
commandments ; since they all hang on this, as 
Christ testifies. Thus, it remains as a just con- 
clusion, even from the testimony of the scholastic 
doctors, that the words of the law do not prove 
a power in the free will, bnt show what we ought 
to do, and what we cannot do. 

But our Diatribe, with still greater absurdity, Mai. 

more 
ticul 
considered. 



ni. /. 



not only infers an indicative sense from that say- mor f P ar 

J J ticularly 



f Dilige Deum. Ama Dominum.~] Dil. and am. are here used 
as of like import : sometimes they are put in contrast, and 
that variously ; diligo being sometimes the stronger, and some- 
times the weaker term. In distinguishing them, 'airio' may 
be understood to denote the love of appetite 5 and ' diligo' 
the love of reason. 

s Forma legis.~] More literally, c the shape, mould, or image 
of the law { ' what is comprehended in it.' 

h Scotistis et Modernis,'] See above, Part iii. Sect. ii. notes 
fg. • ............. 



176 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part ill. ing of Zechariah, ' Turn ye unto me;' but main- 

tains, that it even proves a power of endeavouring 

in Freewill, and grace prepared for the endea- 
vourer. 

And here, at last, she remembers her c endea- 
vour / and, by a new art of grammar, < to turn/ 
with her, signifies the same as ' to endeavour :' 
so that the sense is, ' Turn unto me / that is, 
' endeavour to turn/ and \ I will turn to you / 
that is, * endeavour to turn 'to you. At last, 
then, she attributes endeavour even to God; in- 
tending perhaps to prepare grace for His endea- 
vourings also. For, if ' to turn 9 signifies 6 to 
endeavour 9 in one place ; why not in all ? 

Again, in that passage of Jeremiah, 'If thou 
shalt separate the precious from the vile/ she 
maintains that not only 'endeavour,' but even 
6 freedom of choice/ is proved : what she had 
before taught us to have been lost, and to have 
been turned into a necessity of serving sin. You 
see then, that Diatribe truly possesses a free will 
in her handlings of Scripture ; by which she com- 
pels words, of one and the same form, to prove 
endeavour in one place, and free choice in ano- 
ther; just as she pleases. 

But bidding adieu to these vanities, the word 
' turn 9 has two uses in Scripture ; a legal, and an 
evangelical one. In its legal use, it is an exacter 
and commander ; requiring not endeavour only, 
but change of the whole life; as Jeremiah fre- 
quently uses it, saying, ' Turn ye every one from 
his evil way / ' Turn to the Lord : 9 where it evi- 
dently involves an exacting of all the command- 
ments. When used evangelically, it is a word of 
divine promise and consolation; by which nothing 
is demanded from us, but the grace of God is 
offered to us. Such is that of Psalm cxxvi. 
c When the Lord shall turn again the captivity 
o£ Zion / and that of Psalm cxvi. ' Turn again 
then unto thy rest, my soul !' And so Zecharias 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 177 

contrives to dispatch both sorts of preaching (law as sc.xxiv. 

well as grace) in a very short compendium. It is all 

law, and the sum of the law, when he says, ' Return 
unto me :' it is grace, when he says, ' I will 
return unto you/ As far, therefore, as Freewill is 
proved by that saying, e Love the Lord/ or by 
any other saying of any particular law; just so far, 
and no farther, is it proved by this summary law 
word 6 Turn/ It is the part of a wise reader 
of Scripture then, to observe what are law 
words, and what are grace words; that he may 
not jumble them all together, like the filthy 
Sophists, and like this yawning Diatribe. 1 

1 Luther's distinction between law words and gospel words, 
as applied by him in these two sections, severally and com- 
paredly, is arbitrary, indefinite, and unavailing 1 . Arbitrary ; in- 
asmuch as lie pretends not to have any recognised authority for 
it, and applies it inconsistently j sometimes calling words of 
exhortation or command c gospel words 5' and sometimes con- 
fining that term to words of promise, as opposed to them. 
' Turn ye unto me ' is a law word ; ' I will turn to you ' is a 
gospel word. Indefinite ; because he gives no fixed rule by 
which to determine what is one, and what is the other ; but, 
according to his own account, leaves it to the discerning 
reader. Unavailing ; because a gospel precept is not less im- 
practicable than a law one to the free will. — In my view, he 
confounds matters ; for f return,' or ' repent,' is surely not a 
law precept, but a gospel one : the law knows nothing of 
repentance. — The truth is, he has given his answer to all these 
testimonies already. They are requirements j call them law 
requirements, if you will, or gospel requirements 5 they are 
something for man to do ; and, as he very properly argues, 
they are meant to shew him what he ought to do, but imply 
not any power either towards Law, or towards Gospel. The law 
is, properly, ( the law of the Ten Commandments ;* under 
which, speaking less precisely, may be comprehended all those 
precepts which fall in with the nature and design of that 
' transcript of the creation law of man j" but nothing which 
regards his relations as a fallen, or as a restored creature. — 
Luther speaks confusedly, as other writers do, on this subject; 
not discerning the origin, design, and nature of that institu- 
tion. — The law spake not till Moses ; spake only to the Jews, 
or then visible church of God ; was a preparation for, and 
a fore-preached Gospel. A law word therefore, rightly under- 
stood, is also a gospel word : a word which prepareth, by com- 
pelling a sense of need 5 and which— whilst it 'f shuts up unto 

N 



178 ! BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



SC.XXV. 



part in. p or see now? now g^g treats that famous passage 

in Ezekiel xviii. " As I live, saith the Lord, I 

would not the death of a sinner, but rather 

Ezek.xviii. that he be converted and live." First, c It is so 

23. con- often repeated, says she, in the course of this 

sidered ' chapter, " shall turn away," " hath done," 

" hath wrought ;" in respect both of good and 

evil. Where then are those who deny that man 

does any thing ?? 

What an excellent consequence is here ! She 
was going to prove desire and endeavour in Free- 
will ; but she proves the whole act, every thing 
done to the uttermost by Freewill. Where now 
are they who maintain the necessity of grace and 
of the Holy Spirit? For this is her ingenious 
way of arguing : * Ezekiel says, If the wicked 
man shall turn away from his wickedness and do 
justice and judgment, he shall live. — Why then the 
wicked man presently does so, and can do so/ 
Ezekiel intimates what ought to be done; Diatribe 
considers this as what is done, and has been done ; 
again introducing a new sort of grammar, by 
which she may teach us that it is the same thing 
to owe, as to have — the same thing to be enacted, 
as to be performed — the same thing to demand, 
as to pay. 

After this, she lays hold on that sweetest of gos- 
pel words, f I would not the death of a sinner/ 
and gives this turn to it; k ' Does the holy Lord 
deplore that death of his people, which he works 
in them himself ? If he would not the death of a 
sinner, verily, it is to be imputed to our own will 
if we perish. But what can you impute to a being, 

the faith which should afterwards be revealed," and which now 
has been revealed — impliedly promises and exhibits Him who 
was to be, and who now has been and is, its fulfiller and 
perfecter. 

k Sic versat.'] Vers, implies a forced application of it ; as if you 
should turn a body, that is already in motion, out of its natural 
course ; or give motion to one that is at rest. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 179 

who has no power to do any thing, either good or sc.xxvi. 
evil?* i 

Pelagius also sang just the same sort of song; 
when he ascribed not desire and endeavour only, 
but complete power of fulfilling and doing every 
thing to Freewill. For these consequences prove 
this power, as I have before said, if they prove any 
thing; and therefore fight as stoutly, and even 
more so, against Diatribe herself (who denies 
this power in Freewill, and sets up endeavour 
only), as against us who deny Freewill altogether. 
But without dwelling upon her ignorance, I will 
state the matter as it really is. 

It is a gospel word, and a word of sweetest The true 
consolation to poor miserable sinners, when Eze- meaning 
kiel says, cc I would not the death of a sinner, xvih\ 23. 
but rather that he should be converted and live, stated. 
by all means ." As is that of the thirtieth Psalm 
also, " For his wrath is but for a moment, and 
his will towards us life rather than death." And 
that of the thirty-sixth Psalm, " How sweet is thy 
mercy, Lord !" Also, " Because I am merciful." 
And that saying of Christ, in Matthew xi. " Come 
unto me, all ye that labour, and I will refresh 
you." Also that of Exodus, " I do mercy to 
them that love me, unto many thousands." Nay, 
what is almost more than half of the Scripture 
but mere promises of grace, by which mercy, life, 
peace, and salvation are offered to men ? l And 
what other import have words of promise than 
this, " I would not the death of a sinner ?" Is it 
not the same thing to say, \ I am merciful/ as to 
say, ' I am not angry/ ' I do not wish to punish/ 
' I do not wish you to die/ ' I wish to pardon 
you/ ' I wish to spare you V Now, if these 
divine promises did not stand in the word, to 
raise up those whose consciences have been 
wounded with the sense of sin, and terrified with 

1 See above, Sect xxiii. note a . 

n2 



180 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. the fear of death and judgment, what place would 

there be for pardon, or for hope ? What sinner 

would not despair? But, as Freewill is not 
proved by other words of pity, or promise, or 
consolation, so neither is it proved by this, "I 
would not the death of a sinner." 

But our Diatribe, again confounding the dis- 
tinction between law words and words of promise, 
makes this place of Ezekiel a law word, and ex- 
pounds it thus: 6 I would not the death of a 
sinner;' that is, c I would not that he should sin 
mortally, or become a sinner guilty of death ; 
but rather that he should turn away from his sin, 
if he hath committed any, and so should live/ For, 
if she did not expound it so, it would not serve 
her purpose at all : but such an exposition en- 
tirely subverts and withdraws this most persua- 
sive word of Ezekiel, * I would not the death of 
a sinner/ If we are determined so to read and 
understand the Scriptures, by the exercise of our 
own blindness, what wonder if they be obscure 
and ambiguous ? For he does not say, ' I would 
not the sin of a man/ but * I would not the death 
of a sinner ;' clearly intimating, that he speaks of 
the punishment of sin, which the sinner is expe- 
riencing for his sin ; that is, the fear of death. Yes; 
He raises up and consoles the sinner, when now 
laid on this bed of affliction and despair, that he 
may not quench the smoking flax, or break the 
bruised reed, but may excite hope of pardon and 
salvation : that so he may rather be converted 
(converted, I mean, to salvation from the punish- 
ment of death) and live ; that is, be happy, and 
rejoice in a quiet conscience.™ 

For this also must be observed, that, as the 

m His state as a sinner is a state of eternal death, the just 
punishment of his sin -, and of this state he has the beginning 
in his now realizing apprehensions of it. When converted, 
he is delivered from this state of punishment ; and when he 
lives , he is brought into the joy of this changed state. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 181 

voice of the law is sounded forth only over those sc.xxvii 

who neither feel nor acknowledge their sin (as 

Paul speaks in Rom. iii. " By the law is the 
knowledge of sin"); so the word of grace comes 
but to those who, feeling their sin, are afflicted 
and tempted to despair. Thus it is, that, in all law 
words, you see sin charged by shewing us what 
we ought to do : just as, in all words of promise, 
on the other hand, you see the misery, which 
sinners (that is, those who are to be raised up from 
their dejection by them) labour under, intimated : 
as here, the word ? I would not the death of a 
sinner 9 expressly names death and the sinner ; 
the very evil which is felt, as well as the very 
man who feels it. But in this word c Love God 
with all thy heart 9 there is pointed out the good we 
owe, not the evil we feel; that we may be brought 
to acknowledge how incapable we are of doing 
that good. 

So then, nothing could have been more unaptly Ezek.xviii. 
adduced in support of Freewill, than this passage J^™^ 
from Ezekiel ; which even fights against it most w m, i n - 
lustily. For herein is implied, how Freewill is stead of 
affected, and what it is able to do, when sin has pioving lt 
been discovered, and when now the matter is to 
turn itself to God : it is herein implied, I say, 
that it could do nothing but fall into a still worse 
state, adding desperation and impenitence to its 
other sins, unless God should presently come to 
its succour, and should recall and raise it up, n by 
his word of promise. For God's eagerness in 
promising grace to restore and raise up the 
sinner, is a very mighty and trustworthy argu- 
ment, that Freewill of herself cannot but fall from 
bad to worse; and, as the Scripture says, "to 

n Revocaret et erigeret.~\ Revoc. implies e departure $' the 
soul has gone further and further off from God, through de- 
spair of mercy : erig. implies e fallen ,' ' thrown down,' ( pros- 
trated ;' like Saul before the witch of Endor. 



182 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

PART in. the nethermost hell/' Do you think that God is 

so light-minded as to pour out words of promise 

thus fluently, when they are not necessary to our 
salvation, for the mere pleasure of talking? You 
see then from this fact, that not only do all law 
words stand opposed to Freewill, but even all 
words of promise do utterly confute it. In other 
words, the whole Scripture is at war with it. So 
that this saying ' I would not the death of a 
sinner* has no other object, as you perceive, than 
that of preaching and offering divine mercy 
through the world ; p which none but those who 
have been afflicted and harassed to death receive 
with joy and gratitude. These do so, because the 
law has in them already fulfilled its office, by 
teaching the knowledge of sin : whilst those who 
have not yet experienced this office of the law, 
and who neither acknowledge their sin, nor feel 
their death, despise the mercy promised in that 
word. q 

° The Psalms abound with expressions of this sort : see es- 
pecially the 38th and 88th ; from the latter of which these 
words appear to be a quotation. t( For my life draweth nigh 
unto the grave (v. 3) ; or, according to the older version, " to 
hell." (v. 2.) 

5 See above, note a . The account I have there given of 
Luther's meaning is abundantly confirmed here. Mercy is to 
be preached, and what he calls ' offered,' generally to all men 5 
but only those in whom the law has done its office (and whom 
did Luther understand by these, but God's elect ?) will receive 
it. His offer, therefore, is a nugatory offer to all but the 
elect 3 and these must receive 5 not ' physically ' must, but 
■ morally.' 

1 Luther's answer to Erasmus's argument from Ezek. xviii. 
23. is threefold. 1. It proves too much. 2. It proves no more 
than other gospel words 5 that is, words of promise and mercy. 
3. Such words prove against Freewill, by implying, that without 
them man could only despair. 

See above, note ', where I have objected to this distinction 
between law words and gospel words, and to the statements 
generally made respecting the Law, as though it were opposed 
to the Gospel. Luther is chargeable here with arguing ' per 
sequelam,' for which he so much blames Erasmus 5 * God's 



may 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 183 

But, as to why some are touched by the law s.xxviii. 
and others not/ so that the former take in, and the 
latter despise, the grace offered; this is another G °J ' 

word of promise proves that man could only despair without 
it.' — The true answer to Erasmus's argument from this text 
(which, according to Luther's distinction, is a gospel word — but 
then there is quite as much supernatural help necessary to 
make a gospel word availing, as to fulfil a law one — ) is, that it 
proves nothing on either side. Inferences may be drawn both 
ways ; against as well as for, and for as well as against : but 
the affirmation respects only the mind of God. He declares 
that he wills not death. What does this assert concerning the 
natural powers of man ? — For a more full view of the doctrine 
set forth in this and like texts, and of their place in the great 
scheme of God-manifestation, see the next Section and its notes. 
r Luther has given what he considers the true answer to 
Erasmus's objection drawn from this text 5 t it is a gospel 
word, for the consolation of the law-stricken y and declares 
that we have no right to ask any more questions. I do not 
approve the exact point to which he brings the debate, nor can 
I agree with him that it ought to end just here. Luther 
speaks, and many others like him, as if only the law (meaning 
thereby the law of the Ten Commandments) could do the 
office of abasing and prostrating man 5 which, in effect, 
assumes that the law was given to man from the beginning, 
and that Moses's giving of it was but a republication : else how 
were those saints emptied of self and prostrated, who lived 
before Moses ; such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, and the rest ? But 
what proof is there of the law having been given from the 
beginning ? Express proof is afforded in Rom. v. that the law 
was not till Moses. " For until the law sin was in the world : 
but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless 
death reigned from Adam to Moses, &c." (vv. 13, 14.) The 
truth is, it is not the law, but the Holy Ghost (using the law, 
it is true, as his instrument more generally, where it has been 
given, but by no means universally so using it) — who needeth 
not the law, but has proofs enough to supply of man's sin ; of his 
** earthly, sensual, devilish " mind 3 without having recourse 
to that summary of creation duty — that humbles, empties, and 
makes ready for the manifold Scripture declarations of God's 
entire readiness to receive the penitent freely. These are 
indeed made such of God, and can only be made such by him 5 
though it is not his plan usually to tell us how we have come, 
and alone can come, to this mind, when he testifies his love and 
good-will towards it. So that the question arising from this 
admitted state of things, ' some receive, others do not receive, 
this and like gospel words,' is not properly why some are law- 
stricken ; or, more correctly, why some are prostrated, and 
self-emptied, and self-despairing 5 but why some have the 



184 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



be said to 
bewail the 
death he 
produces. 



part in. question, and one not treated by Ezekiel in this 

place. He speaks of God's preached and offered 

mercy, not of that secret and awful will of his, by 

the counsel of which he ordains whom and what 

sort of persons he wills to be made capable of 

receiving, and to become actual participants of 

his preached and offered mercy. This will of 

God is not the object of our researches, but of 

our reverent adoration ; as being by far the most 

venerable secret of the divine majesty, which he 

keeps locked up in his own bosom, and which is 

much more religiously 5 prohibited to us, than the 

Corycian caves to the countless multitude. 

When now Diatribe cavillingly asks, 'whether 
the holy Lord bewails that death of his people 
which he produces in them himself? a suggestion 
too absurd to be entertained :' 

I answer, as I have already done, we must 
argue in one wise concerning God, or the will of 



Holy Ghost, and others have not ; which is, in other words, 
why is there ' an election of grace?' — I cannot agree with 
Luther, that we have no right to ask this question ; or, in 
other words, that the Scripture does not afford an answer to it -, 
for here is the secret of God. 

If it be asked why such a man is elect, and such a man is 
not elect, it is most true, we have no answer ; this is God's 
secret j we have nothing to do with it. But if the question be, 
why are there elect and non-elect, we have. to do with it, and 
can give an answer : it is to the manifestation of God ; which is 
the end of all his counsels, and of all his operations. — For 
some observations on Luther's accepted aphorism ' Quae supra 
nos, nihil ad nos,' and upon ( his apparent setting out of two 
Gods,' with one of which we have nothing to do ; and for the 
correct answer to Erasmus's insidious question, 'Does God 
deplore &c.' see notes l , v , x , which follow. 

s Religiosius.~] ' By religious considerations.' — The multitude 
might look into the entrance j priests might enter into the 
penetralia : but the multitude might not go in to explore : if 
they did, they were filled with terrors ; appalling sights con- 
founded them : just so, and with still more fearful apprehen- 
sions of a religious nature, we are prohibited, says Luther, 
from attempting to penetrate the secret of God. But the ques- 
tion is, where this secret begins ? Luther says, ' in the fact, 
that some are touched by the law,, and others not.' 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 185 

God, insofar as that will is proclaimed to us, s.xxviii. 

revealed, offered to our acceptance, made the 

ground of worship; and in another wise, concern- 
ing God, insofar as he is unproclaimed, unre- 
vealed, unoffered, and unworshipped. So far as 
God hides himself, and chooses to be unknown by 
us, we have nothing to do with him. Here is the 
true application of that saying, c What is above 
us, is nothing to us/ And lest any one should 
suppose this to be my distinction, let him know 
that I follow Paul, who writes to the Thessa- 
lonians concerning Antichrist (2 Thess. ii. 4.) 
" That he would exalt himself above all that is 
proclaimed of God, and that is worshipped;"* 

1 Super omnem Deum prcedicatum et cultum.'] Literally,, f above 
all the proclaimed and worshipped God.' 1 question the sound- 
ness of Luther's interpretation of this text, and of the argu- 
ment consequently, which he draws from it; although the 
distinction which he labours to establish is, with some modifi- 
cation and amplification, the root of the answer to the objec- 
tion. " Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is 
called God, or that is an object of worship ," is the more correct 
rendering of the original text. The meaning seems to be, that 
this Antichrist would both oppose himself to, and exalt him- 
self above, every object of worship, both true and false ; ' every 
being that is called God, and every substance which is wor- 
shipped.' It has therefore nothing to do with distinct views 
and considerations respecting the true God ; but only marks 
the extravagant claims which this Antichrist would make, and 
which would be allowed by his votaries, as compared with the 
several objects of worship received in the world. — The word of 
God, however, doth clearly recognise a distinction between 
God, regarded as the legislator, governor, and judge of his 
moral creation — or in any other relations which he may have 
been pleased to assume towards the whole, or certain parts, of 
that creation — and God regarded as he is in himself, and as 
separated from such relations : as also, between that will of 
His which he hath revealed for our obedience (what may 
therefore be called his legislative will), and that free, infinite, 
and eternal will of His, from which this legislative will has 
emanated, and by which, in perfect consistency with all his 
assumed relations, and with that of legislator amongst the 
rest, he regulates his own conduct (what may therefore be 
called, by way of distinction, his personal will) : in other 
words, between his commands and his mind. — God, who made 
the worlds, the alone Being, subsisted in his trinity of co- 



186 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. plainly intimating, that a man might be exalted 
above God, so far as he is proclaimed, and wor- 

equal persons, infinite, and all-blessed, before he made them. 
Is it presumptuous to say why he made them ? Has he not 
unequivocally told us ? His end is, as it must be, seated in 
himself.* He will shew himself — what he is — so far as infinite 
can be shewn to finite, to certain moral and intelligent crea- 
tures, whom he will make capable of apprehending, adoring, 
and enjoying him, in their measure. Hence the whole counsel, 
process, series, and results of creation ; in which I include all 
that belongs to Creator and creature-ship. Hence the true dis* 
tinction between the hidden and revealed God : which is 
properly no other than God the revealer and God the revealed ; 
creation in this wide extent being only God's revealer -, and 
having in reality revealed much of him, whilst there is much 
at last in God which is not, cannot be revealed. Thus, we see 
that this hidden God, or rather this absolute God (so called 
because not circumscribed by relations j which relations, how- 
ever, can only be such as he has seen fit to assume ; and which 
he has seen fit to assume, for the one great end of self-manifes- 
tation), is the same God with the revealed and circumscribed 
God | and that, so far from being an unknown God in this 
regard, he has revealed himself in his relative and circum- 
scribed capacity, for the very purpose of making himself 
known (so far as the incomprehensible can be made known) 
in this absolute and uncircumscribed capacity. 

So, again, with respect to his secret and his revealed will -, or, 
as I have more correctly distinguished them, his personal and 
his legislative will ; whilst these are distinct, they are neither 
opposed to each other, nor unconnected with each other — his 
legislative will subserves his personal will, and is his ordained 
and specially-devised instrument for accomplishing it : by 
which accomplishment, his great purpose, in submitting him- 
self to his various creator relationships (to wit, self- manifest- 
ation) is achieved. f 

Luther does not seem to have apprehended the union and 
concordance of these two distinct views, in which both God 
and his will are set forth to us, whilst he so strongly marks 
their distinctness • and thus, his answer (not being the whole 
truth ; that is, not being the truth j which consists in an har- 
monious combination of many parts) has an air of evasion and 
sophistry (to which he seems not to have been insensible him- 
self), and is, in reality, unsatisfying and repulsive. Is it true, 
that the proverb, ' What is above us, is nothing to us/ has its 
rightful application here ? Is it true, that we have nothing to 

* See Vaughan's Calvinistic Clergy defended, p. 64 — 73. 2d Ed. 

t In the observations which follow, I do not confine myself to the words 
immediately under review, but comprehend the whole of Luther's expres- 
sions and reasonings in this and the three succeeding paragraphs. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 187 

shipped ; that is, above that word and worship s.xxviii. 
by which God is made known to us, and main- 

do with this God of majesty, as Luther calls him ; the absolute 
God ? What is the knowledge of God — that last, highest, best 
gift of promise — but the knowledge of this God ? the communica- 
tion of which is, as we have seen, the very end of creation and 
of revelation. — Again -, is it true, that the revealed God, or 
relative God, wills only life ? or, according to Luther's own 
way of stating it, that God has revealed himself in his word 
only as that God who offers himself to all men, and would draw 
all men unto himself? — Why then does he tell us, in that self- 
same word, that in very deed for this cause he had raised Pharaoh 
lip, for to shew in him His power ; and that His name might be 
declared throughout all the earth ? — That it was of the Lord to 
harden the hearts of the Canaanites, that they should come 
against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, 
and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy 
them, as the Lord commanded Moses ? — That Hophni and 
Phinehas hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because 
the Lord would slay them ? — That he smells a sweet savour of 
Christ in them that perish ? — That whom he will he hardeneth ? — 
That there are those ordained of old to condemnation ? — Those 
appointed to stumble at the stone ? — Those whom he has com- 
manded to fill up the measure of their iniquities ? — That he is, 
in short, a potter having power over the clay, and using that 
power ? — Has he proclaimed all this concerning himself in his 
word ; does he, moreover, make that word his great instru- 
ment of bringing these things to pass ; and is it true never- 
theless, that his word stands in contrast, nay direct opposi- 
tion, to himself, so that we are wisely counselled to attend to 
his word in contrast, and even in opposition, to God who gave 
it? — Had Luther discerned the simple end of creation and 
revelation, ' God manifesting himself as what he really is in 
his essence ' (in which essence, hatred of that which is con- 
trary to himself is as much a part as love of that which is like 
himself) ; and seen that by means of creation and revelation, 
God is actually effecting this end — he would not have talked of 
salvation being the revealed God's alone work ; nor have said 
that we have to do with his word, but not with himself ; nor have 
warned us that we have nothing to do with His inscrutable will 
(including therein all that Luther includes therein) — when that 
inscrutable will is made matter of instruction in his word, and 
is declared to be what he is continually fulfilling in us ; what 
the Lord Jesus thanks his Father for ; and what his people 
find to be their great source of light, and strength, and joy. — 
How remarkable it is, that Luther should here silence his 
gainsayer with <f Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest 
against God ?" when, with the interval of only a single verse, 
the Holy Ghost had furnished him with a clue to the whole 



188 BONDAGE OF THE WILL: 

part in. tains intercourse with us. But, if God be re- 

garded, not as he is an object of worship, and 

as he is proclaimed, but as he is in his own 
nature and majesty, nothing can be exalted above 
him, but every thing is under his powerful hand. 

God must be left to himself then, so far as he 
is regarded in the majesty of his own nature ; for 
in this regard we have nothing to do with him ; 
nor is it in this regard that he hath willed to be 
dealt with by us : but, so far as he is clothed with 
his word, and displayed to us thereby; that word, 
by which he has offered himself to our acceptance; 
that word, which is his glory and beauty, and 
with which the Psalmist celebrates him as clothed; 
so far, and so far only, we transact with him. In 
this regard, we affirm that the holy God does not 
bewail that death of his people, of which he is 
himself the worker in them; but bewails that 
death which he finds in his people, and is taking 
pains to remove it. For this is what the pro- 
claimed God is about, even taking away sin and 
death, that we may be saved. For " he hath sent 
his word and healed them." u But the God 
which is hidden in the majesty of his own 

counsel of God, and with an answer to those very questions 
which he says it is not lawful to ask, or possible to get resolved. 
" What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power 
known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath 
fitted to destruction : And that he might make known the riches 
of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared 
unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, 
but also of the Gentiles ?" — Luther both speaks and means 
incorrectly here ; but he says rather more than he means. It 
is not against the sober, hallowed use of the knowledge of this 
inscrutable will (for though there be that which is inscrutable 
in it, there is also that in it which may be known, for he has 
told it to us), but against those who denied, or confounded, or 
impugned, or reviled these distinctions, and would hear no- 
thing of his sovereign majesty, and of his secret counsel, that 
he is aiming his dart here. 

11 Psalm cvii. 20. Luther applies this healing f to all men ;' 
but the Psalmist declares it only of e those who cry unto the 
Lord in their trouble and in particular dispensations of his 
hand.' — This is not all men. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 189 

nature, neither bewails nor takes away death ; but s.xxviii. 
works life and death, and all things in all things/ 

v Yes — and works life and death, and all things in all things, 
through the agency of that proclaimed, or relative God ; and 
in perfect consistency with — ijea, by means of — that legisla- 
tive* will, which regulates man's duty as his moral creature. 
It is as the proclaimed or relative God, not as the hidden or 
absolute God, that he both saves and destroys ; and this, by 
means of his legislative enactments, not in contradiction to 
them. The power which he gives to his elect and saved, and 
which he withholds from the reprobate and damned, is distinct 
from these legislative enactments ; and, whilst it proceeds 
from the relative God, proceeds not from him in his legisla- 
torial relation, but in another, which is distinct from and not 
commensurate with it, although its subjects be also subject to 
that relation, and to its requirements. It is no part of the 
legislator's office to give power, or to withhold it. He may 
do either. He may work any thing, every thing, upon, 
around, above, beneath him, so he but leave the subject of 
his enactments a free agent : and this God does, and ever has 
done. 

Thus it was in creation strictly so called ; God, having assumed 
the relation of Creator to man, gave him a law (Gen. ii. 17.) 
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou 
shalt not eat of it ; for in the day that thou eatest thereof 
thou shalt surely die." It was no part of his relation, as Creator, 
either to withhold temptation from his creature, whom he had 
" made upright," <f in his own image," " good," " very 
good " (but, as we have before noticed, f not having the Holy 
Ghost, and therefore not held as by a chain to God, but sub- 
sisting in a state of severance from him) -, nor yet to sustain 
him by new powers (additional to those which he had received 
at his creation), in a crisis of temptation. The result was that 
he fell ; and that the whole human race (which had been 
created in him, and of which the several individuals had a dis- 
tinct personal subsistence in him, and were parts of his sub- 
stance, when, having first apostatized in heart, he did after- 
wards put forth his hand, and did take, and did eat) shared in 
his ruin. — It is by the instrumentality of this law then, that 
God both saves whom he personally wills to save, and destroys 
whom he personally wills to destroy : saving those to whom, 
by a super- creation relation which was given them in Christ 
Jesus before the world began, he vouchsafes his special grace; 
and, destroying those from whom, in perfect consistency with all 
creation dues and obligations, he withholds the same. 

* By ' legislative,' I shall be understood to mean all which can be 
called * enactment,' as given by God, of whatever kind ; whether to one 
nation, or to the whole world ; whether Law or Gospel. See note 4 above. 

f Sect, xviii. note i . 



190 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. For, when acting in this character, he does not 

bound himself by his word, but has reserved to 

himself the most perfect freedom in the exercise of 
his dominion over all things. 

But Diatribe beguiles herself through her igno- 
rance, making no distinction between the pro- 
claimed God, and the hidden God ; that is, be- 
tween the word of God, and God himself. God 
does many things which he has not shewn us in 

Thus it was in God's dealings with the nation of Israel, and 
with his visible church, as for a season co-extensive with 
that nation. When now he had formed the seed of Abraham 
into a nation, and had assumed the relation of king to that 
people, he gave them a law ; by which, instrumentally, he kept 
them for his own, so long as it was his personal will to keep 
them, and scattered them when it was the counsel of his per- 
sonal will to scatter them.* By the same law instrumentally, He, 
in their ecclesiastical relation, saved whom he would save, 
through the bestowal of a grace which was not of their covenant ; 
whilst he at the same time destroyed whom he would destroy, 
through the withholding of that grace, in perfect consistency 
with the provisions of the same. 

Thus it is also in the Gospel Church, and in the commanded 
preaching of the Gospel to all nations, and tongues, and 
people. God, in the relation of the offended sovereign of the 
human race, command eth all men every where to repent- 
giving them what may be called the law of repentance and 
faith, and demanding of them a state of mind which is suited 
to their condition as fallen and guilty creatures. ' Repent ye, 
and believe the Gospel.' f By this legislative will of his, 
instrumentally, he fulfils the counsels of his personal will ; 
saving whom he has predestinated to save, and destroying 
whom he has predestinated to destroy. 

* Israel, like Adam in Paradise, broke the law nearly as soon as it was 
given him ; but, by so doing, he prepared the way for all God's future 
dealings with him. 

f Implicitly, but not explicitly, this is the demand, and the alone demand, 
which God has made upon man, even the whole human race, since the Fall; 
and shall continue to be so, till his mystery be finished by the Lord's second 
coming. The form of this demand has been varied, the knowledge of it has 
been varied; the law, eminently so called, has been interposed to the church, 
God has " winked at times of ignorance ;" but a Manasseh's humbledness of 
mind, with a peradventure of mercy — the only demand which, in consis- 
tency with the recognition of those primary transactions in the Garden, and 
with the realities of the case, could be made — is in truth the only demand 
which has been made upon the sons and daughters of fallen Adam, from the 
period of the ejection out of Paradise until now : a demand which has served 
to mark the only difference that can ever be found to subsist between the 
several apostate members of an apostate head ; viz. continued apostasy in 
some, and restoration in others. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 191 

his word. He also wills many things which he s.xxvnr. 
has not shewn as that he wills, in his word. For ■ 
instance, he wills not the death of a sinner- 
according to his word, forsooth — but he wills it 
according to that inscrutable will of his. Now 
our business is to look at his word, and to leave 
that inscrutable will of his to itself: for we must 
be directed in our path by that word, and not by 
that inscrutable will. Nay, who could direct 
himself by that inscrutable and inaccessible will? 
It is enough for us barely to know, that there is a 
certain inscrutable will in God. — What that will 
wills, why it so wills, and how far it so wills, are 
matters which it is altogether unlawful for us to in- 
quire into, to wish for knowledge about, to trouble 
ourselves with, or to approach even with our touch. 
In these matters, we have only to adore and tofear. 
So then, it is rightly said, c If God wills 
not death, we must impute it to our own will 
that we perish/ Rightly, I say, if you speak 
of the proclaimed God. For he would have all 
men to be saved, coming, as he does, with his 
word of salvation to all men ; and the fault is in 
our own will, which does not admit him ; as he 
says, in Matt, xxiii. " How often would I have 
gathered thy children, and thou wouldest not m — 
But why this majesty of His does not remove this 
fault of our will, or change it in all men (seeing 
that it is not in the power of man to do so); or 
why he imputes this fault of his will to man, when 
man cannot be without it; these are questions 
which it is not lawful for us to ask ; and which, 
if you should ask them, you would never get 
answered. The best answer is that which Paul 
gives in Romans ix. " Who art thou that repliest 
against God 1" Let these remarks suffice for this 
passage of Ezekiel, and let us go on to the rest* 

x Luther has in substance given the right answer to this 
cavil from Ezekiel, but has given it, as we have seen, in an 
exceptionable form $ exceptionable, as it respects the distinc- 



192 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. After this, Diatribe objects that the exhorta- 

■ — - tions with which the Scripture so much abounds, 

sc.xxix. together with all those manifold promises, threaten- 

Exhorta- t j Qn ^^[^ h e institutes, ' hidden God and revealed God / 
ions, pio- an j exceptionable, in that he does not show the sameness of 
this God, which is thus distinguishing^ regarded. It is to 
be remembered, that the words bear only by inference and 
consequence upon the question of Freewill (which is the ques- 
tion in debate), whatever be the correct interpretation of them ; 
neither does Erasmus represent them fairly. Erasmus speaks 
of wailing and working : but where does Ezekiel say that God 
ff wails r" He says only, ' I would not.' Erasmus argues, 
c God deplores 5 therefore, it is not his doing that they die ; 
therefore, it is their own doing ; therefore, there is Freewill.' 
It is inference two deep ; each of which requires proof. What 
if their death be self-wrought ? • Why may they not have pre- 
viously forfeited their Freewill, and therefore die under bond- 
will? We might hold ourselves excused, therefore, from 
entering at all into this cavil 3 it is truly nihil ad nos. 

But there are reasons why we should rather meet it in the 
face 5 and the answer has, by implication, been given to it 
already. — Some would say, why not at once knock it down 
with " Secret things belong unto the Lord ?" (Deut. xxix. 29.) 
a convenient text for a perplexed disputant ! My answer is, that 
text does not apply here. The Prophet is not speaking of the 
principles of divine conduct, but of those providential events 
and arrangements by which God realizes and fulfils them. It 
was in the counsels of God to bring the nation of Israel to 
obedience at the last, through a long course of tergiversation 
and punishment : but they had at that time the word given to 
them (" the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy 
heart ; that is, the word of faith, which we preach." Com- 
pare Rom. x. 5 — 10. with Deut. xxx. 11 — 14.), which they 
would at length obey. Now, they had nothing to do with 
these intermediate events which God would bring about ; it 
was theirs to use that commandment (or rather that Gospel 
which the commandment fore-preached) — looking through the 
type to the reality — which he commanded them that day. — 
Besides, if we were at liberty to use this text here, we must 
learn from it, that we have nothing to do with election and 
reprobation at all : as some are fond enough of admonishing 
us. For it is not a question, who is individually of the one 
class, and who of the other, that is here to be answered ; but 
whether there really be such distinctions, and why there are 
such. (See above, note r .) — Then meeting the question 
fairly, though not fairly attached to the question of Freewill, 
how does this assertion in Ezekiel comport with the God- willed 
death of a sinner ? 
Not to insist upon the peculiarities of the case to which this 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 193 

ings, expostulations, upbraidings, be seedlings, sect. 
blessings and cursings, and all those numerous xxix. 



ture use- 
less. 



solemn declaration of God is annexed (the house of Israel was raises, &c 
brought into peculiar relations to God, and the case of an ° f Scn P 
Israelite was therefore considerably different from that of 
uncovenanted transgressors) 5 not to notice the ambiguity of 
Erasmus's expression ' his people ' (God works no death in 
his people properly so called, though he works death in many 

who have a name to be his people, and are not) ; without 

j 
insisting that the original words t^pf^ V^H<^ as well as the 

t I : i v I <. T i" 

Oe\tv, not fiovXopat, of the Septuagint, express inclination 
rather than determination — and so the sentiment conveyed may 
be no more than what our translators have assigned to them, 
' have I any pleasure at all,' ' for I have no pleasure { implying 
only such a reluctance as is not inconsistent with a contrary 
decision — though Luther, as well as Erasmus, makes it e nolo 5' 
waving all such objections, which do not shield the vitals of the 
truth, though they may serve to parry off a blow from its ex- 
tremities (for clearly here is God at least declaring his dislike 
of that death which he nevertheless inflicts, and which w r e 
affirm that he wills) • the true account of the matter, and that 
which comprehends all possible cases, has been furnished in 
the two preceding notes 5 asserted in note t 9 and illustrated by 
examples in note u . 

The relative God, in his character of Israel's legislator and 
sovereign, declares in this chapter that he will deal henceforth 
both nationally and spiritually with that people, each man 
according to his own ways j and, in effect, preaches the Gospel 
to each individual of them, saying, ' Repent, and live.' At the 
twenty-third verse,* he signifies that he has no pleasure in the 
death of him that dieth : in the three last verses, he exhorts 
and remonstrates, and repeats his gracious assurances. — But it 
does not belong to these and such like relations, to give grace 
and power ; and, without such grace and power, exhortations 
promises and threatenings are all, and alike, vain. But is 
God therefore to withhold them ? Man, without this super- 
added grace, ought to obey them 5 ought, though he cannot 5 
cannot, through a self-wrought impotency. And are there no 
reasons, no satisfying reasons, why God should give them ? Are 
not these amongst his choicest instruments, whereby he effects 
the manifestation of, himself ; manifestation of himself, through 
the manifestation of what is in man ; " that thou mightest be 
justified when thou speakest, and clear when thou judgest." — 
His elect obey 3 his non-elect harden themselves yet the more, 
under his outward calls. — Thus, whether the case set forth in 
Ezekiel be considered as the peculiar case of the national Israel, or 

* Erasmus quotes the text unfairly, by joining the oath of v. 3 with v, 23 $ 
but it is no part of it. 

O 



194 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. swarms of precepts, are without meaning ne- 

cessarily/ if no one has it in his power to keep 

what is commanded. 

Diatribe is always forgetting the question at 
issue, and proving something different from what 
she undertook to prove: nor does she perceive, 
how much more strongly every thing she says 
makes against herself than against us. For she 
proves from all these passages a liberty and power 
of keeping all the commandments, by force of 
the inference which she suggests from the words 
quoted; when all the while she meant only to 
prove ' such a Freewill as can will nothing good 
without grace, together with a sort of endeavour, 
which is not to be ascribed however to its own 
powers/ I see no proof of such endeavour in any 
of the passages quoted \ I see only a demand of 
such actions as ought to be performed : what I 
have indeed said too often already, if it were not 
that such frequent repetition is necessary, because 
Diatribe so often blunders upon the same string/ 
putting off her reader with an useless profusion of 
words, 
sc. xxx. Nearly the last passage which she adduces from 

the Old Testament, is that of Moses in Deut. xxx. 

?i~i4. XX ' " ^ n ^ s commandment, which I command thee this 

considered. 

the general case of the visible church having the Gospel preached 
to it (that Gospel which is in one view a statute, enactment, 
or commandment ; whilst, in another view, it is the Jubilee 
trumpet, by which the Holy Ghost proclaims liberty to the 
Lord's captives) ; we see in it, at last, but a farther exem- 
plification of what has been shewn already ; the relative God 
revealing the absolute, and his legislative fulfilling his personal 
will. — Luther meant nothing contrary to this statement, though 
his language might seem to imply it. 

y Frigere necessarib.'] Frig. A metaphor taken from vegetable 
or animal substances, which are nipped with cold. These ex- 
hortations, &c. have no warmth, no life, no power, no mean- 
ing in them, without Freewill. 

8 f Ut citharoedus 

Ridetur, chorda qui semper oberrat eadem.' 

Hor. Art. Poet. 355. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 195 

day, is not above thee, nor far off from thee, nor sc. xxx. 

placed in heaven, that you mightest say, who of 

us is able to ascend up into heaven, to bring it 
down to us, that we may hear and fulfil it ? But the 
word is very near to thee, in thy mouth and in 
thy heart, that thoumayest do it." Diatribe main- 
tains it to be declared in this place, that we not 
only have power to do what is enjoined, but that 
it is even downhill work to do so ; that is, easy, 
or at least not difficult. 

Thanks to you for your immense learning ! If 
then Moses so clearly pronounces that there is 
not only a faculty in us, but even a facility of 
keeping all the commandments ; why submit to all 
this toil? Why have we not at once produced 
this passage, and asserted Freewill in a field that 
is without opponent. 11 What need have we any 
longer of Christ ? what need of the Spirit ? We 
have at length found a place which stops every 
mouth, and distinctly pronounces not only that 
the will is free, but that the observance of all the 
commandments is easy ! How foolish was Christ 
to purchase that unnecessary Spirit for us at the 
price of his own out-poured blood, that it might 
be made easy to us to keep the commandments ; 
a facility, which it now seems that we possess by 
nature ! Nay, let Diatribe herself recant her own 
words, in which she said that Freewill can will 
nothing good without grace : and let her now say, 
that Freewill is of so great virtue as not only to 
will good, but even with great ease to keep the 
chiefest and all the commandments. O see what is 
the result of having a mind which feels no interest 
in the cause pleaded ! see how impossible it is, that 
this mind should not betray itself! Is there any 
longer need to confute Diatribe? Who can con- 
fute her more thoroughly than she confutes her own 
self? This, forsooth, is the animal which devours 

a Libero campo.~\ I understand it c liber ab hoste, seu anta- 
gonists :' but I do not find any parallel. 

o2 



196 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. its own stomach.* How true is the proverb, ' a 

liar ought to have a good memory \' 

I have spoken on this passage in my commentary 
upon Deuteronomy. I shall therefore treat it 
concisely here, shutting out Paul from our dis- 
cussion, who handles this passage with great 
power, in Rom. x. You perceive that nothing 
at all is affirmed here, nor one single syllable 
uttered, about facility or difficulty, about the 
power or the impotency, of Freewill or of man, 
to keep or not to keep the commandment : except 
that those who entangle the Scriptures in the net 
of their own consequences and fancies, do thereby 
render them obscure and ambiguous to themselves, 

b Se ipsam comedit.~\ What this animal is, and whether real 
or fabulous ; I must leave in some doubt. The lobster comes 
nearest to the description : of which it is said ; f At the same 
time that they cast their shell, they change also their stomach 
and intestines. The animal, while it is moulting, is said to 
feed upon its former stomach, which wastes by degrees, and 
is at length replaced with a new one.' — Bingley's Animal 
Biography, vol. iii. p. 511. But the pelican seems the more 
probable allusion here ; whose method of taking its suste- 
nance from its pouch, might well account for the figment 
of its eating itself, or preying on its own stomach. The 
scolopendra discharges its own bowels, in order to disgorge 
the hook ; and the scorpion, inclosed with burning coals, 
stings itself to death : but neither of these seems applicable 
here. The name bestia is said to be ascribed properly to wild 
and noxious animals, but not confined to these ; whilst bellua 
expresses size rather than fierceness. 

c See Luther's commentary on Deuteronomy, in loco : where 
he notices and chides this unjustifiable use, which the Sophists 
make of it. He gives another turn to the " secret things" of 
the preceding chapter : considering them as secrets revealed to 
Israel, that he may obey. Also, he understands St. Paul's appli- 
cation of this text as an accommodation of the original words, 
not a quotation according to their true sense, as spoken by 
Moses. But his comment will be found strongly to confirm the 
view which I have given of this text, in note x . Moses's word 
can only be fulfilled, he says, under the Gospel : yet Moses 
says, " See, I have set before thee this day life and death, &c." 
Then what more natural, than to understand him as calling 
upon them to see the Gospel in their Law, and to yield a gospel 
obedience to that Law ? which every spiritual Israelite no 
doubt did. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 197 

for the purpose of making what they please of sc. xxx. 

them. But now, if you have no eyes, turn your 

ears at least to what is here spoken, or strike your 
hand over the letters/ Moses says, 'it is not 
above thee, nor placed afar off, nor seated in 
heaven, nor beyond the sea/ What is the mean- 
ing of ' above thee?' 'afar off?' 'seated in 
heaven?' 'across the sea?' Will they even 
make our grammar and the commonest words ob- 
scure to us, till they make it impossible for us to 
say any thing that is certain; just to carry their 
point, that the Scriptures are obscure ? 

According to my grammar, it is not quality 
or quantity of human strength, but distance of 
place, which is meant by these words. It is not a 
certain power of the will, but a place which is 
above us, that is expressed by ' above thee.' So 
the words ' afar off,' ' across the sea,' ' in heaven,' 
do not denote any power in man, but a place re- 
moved from us upwards, to the right hand, to the 
left hand, backwards or forwards. There may be 
those perhaps, who will laugh at my thick-headed 
way of speaking, when witli out-stretched hands 
I present a sort of chewed morsel 6 to these full- 
grown gentlemen, as though they had not yet 
learned their ABC, and teach them that syl- 
lables must be combined into words. But what 
can I do, when I see men hunting for darkness in 
the midst of such clear light, and studiously wish- 
ing to be blind, after reckoning up such a series 
of ages to us, so many geniuses, so many saints, 
so many martyrs, so many doctors ; and after 
vaunting this passage of Moses with such vast 
authority, although they deign not to inspect the 

d Manibus palpa.~] e If you cannot see, or hear, submit to 
have your finger put upon each letter, thai you may trace it 
out ;' asa child is taught to read. 

e Prcsmansum porrigentem.'] Pram. A word of doubtful au- 
thority, but well fitted to express the first process in the art of 
teaching, by which the scholar eats as it were out of the 
master's mouth. 



198 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. syllables of which it consists, or to put so much of 

constraint upon their own thoughts as to consider 

for once the passage of which they make their boast. 
Go tell us now, Diatribe, how it comes to pass, 
that one obscure individual sees what so many 
public characters and the nobles of so many 
ages have not seen. Assuredly, this passage 
proves them to have been not seldom blind, were ^ 
it but a little child that should sit in judgment « 
upon them. 

Then what doth Moses mean by these most 
obvious and most clear words, but that he has dis- 
charged his office as a faithful lawgiver to perfec- 
tion? Having brought it to pass that there 
should be no cause, why they did not know, and 
have in array before them, all the commands of 
God ; and that no place should be left to them 
for urging by way of excuse, that they did not 
know or had not commandments, or must seek 
them from some other quarter. The effect of 
which would be, that, if they should not keep 
them, the fault would be neither in the law, nor 
in the lawgiver, but in themselves ; since they 
have the law, and the lawgiver has taught them, 
so that there is no plea of ignorance remaining 
for them, but only a charge of negligence and of 
disobedience. ' It is not necessary/ says he, c to 
fetch laws from heaven' or from the parts beyond 
the seas, or from afar off; nor canst thou pretend 
either that thou hast not heard them, or that 
thou dost not possess them : thou hast them near to 
thee, they are what thou hast heard by the com- 
mand of God from my lips ; thou hast understood 
them with thine heart, and hast received them to 
be read and expounded by the mouth of the 
Levites/ which are in the midst of thee, con- 

f Tractandas accepisti.~\ In Deut. xxxi. 9 — 13. the ordinance 
is, (C And Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests, 
the sons of Levi, which bare the ark, the covenant of the Lord, 
and unto all the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded 
them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 199 

tinually: this very word and book of mine is sc.xxxi. 
witness. It remains only that thon mayest do 
them/ — What is here ascribed, pray, to Freewill? 
Save that she is required to fulfil the laws which 
she has, and the excuse of ignorance and want of 
laws, is taken away. s 

These are nearly all the texts which Diatribe Someofthe 
adduces from the Old Testament in support of ment wit*~ 
Freewill ; by releasing which, 11 we leave none re- nesses for 
maining, which are not released as well as they FreewilL 
— whether she bring more, or be intending to 
bring more — since she can bring nothing but a 
parcel of imperative, or conjunctive, or optative 
verbs, by which is signified not what we can do, 
or are doing (as I have so often replied to Dia- 



of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all 
Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God, in the place 
which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all 
Israel, in their hearing. Gather the people together," &c. &c. 
See also vv. 24 — 26. Also Josh. viii. 31 — 35. Also Nehem. 
viii. 1 — 8. Also 2 Chron. xvii. 7 — 9. xxx. 22. — I render the 
expression ' ore assiduo' continually : but, if I could have 
found authority for the use of the word f assiduus,' I should 
rather have given it a reference to what is said in Nehemiah, 
" And the Levites caused the people to understand the law, 
&c. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and 
gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." 
— Luther is correct then in suggesting, that the Levites (in- 
cluding the priests under this name) were to handle or dis- 
course on the law to the people, not simply to read it : and, 
although he anticipates the injunction as given on this oc- 
casion, it had in substance been given before (see Deut. x. 
8, 9.), at the second delivering of the Tables. 

s I do not quite fall in with Luther's interpretation of this 
text, as I have hinted in note x of Sect, xxviii. and note c of 
Sect. xxx. — (Why are we to*shut out Paul in our interpretation 
of it ? Is not the Holy Ghost the best commentator upon the 
Holy Ghost's words ?) — But I do not the less resist its ap- 
plication in support of Freewill. e The thing required is nigh 
thee j what ought to be in thy month and in thy heart.' Is 
it therefore immediately and necessarily there ? and that, of our 
own giving and getting V 

h Quibus solutis.~\ Sol. ' Quod ligatum est, avinculis libero ;' 
f the bands of these captive texts having been loosed :' they 
had been tied and bound in the service of FreewilL 



200 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. tribe so often repeating the same thing") ; but what 

■ we ought to do, and what is required of us, to 

the end that our own impotency may become 
notorious to us, and the knowledge of sin be vouch- 
safed. These texts indeed, if they prove any 
thing, through the addition of consequences and 
similes which are the invention of human reason, 
prove that Freewill possesses not only endeavour, 
or some small particle of desire; but an entire 
power and the freest ability to do all things, 1 
without the grace of God, and without the aid of 
his Holy Spirit. 

So that nothing is further from the thing proved 
by this whole discourse, trodden into us, as it 
has been, by continual repetitions, than the propo- 
sition which she had undertaken to prove ; namely, 
c that approvable opinion, by which Freewill is 
determined to be so impotent that it can will 
nothing good without grace, and is compelled to 
serve sin, and possesses endeavour which is not to 
be ascribed to its own energies : 9 a monster for- 
sooth, which can at the same time do nothing by 
its own energies, yet possesses a power of endea- 
vouring, in its own energies ; and so consists by 
a most manifest contradiction.* 
sect. We come now to the New Testament, where a 
xxxn. | ar g e force of imperative verbs is again mustered 
" _ ' in the wretched service of Freewill, and the 

New Test. .,. . _ > 

Scriptures auxiliaries ot carnal reason, such as consequences 
for Free- an( j similes, are fetched in : like a picture, or a 
niii with" dream, in which you should see the king of the 
Mat. xxiii. flies, with his lances of straw and shields of hay, 
considered. se ^ * n battle arra y against a real and well-appointed 
army* of human warriors. — Such is the kind of 



1 Totam vim, opposed to a fraction ; liberrimam potestatem, 
' the absolute and unrestrained use of this integral power.' 

k Qua constat contradiction e manifJ] Its constituting elements 
are power and no power ; which cannot subsist together : 
what becomes of the compound then ? 

1 Veram etjustam aciem, 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 201 

warfare which the human dreams of Diatribe sect. 
carry on against troops of divine testimonies. 

First marches forth, like the Achilles of the 
flies, that text in Matt, xxiii. " Jerusalem, 
Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy 
children together, and thou wouldest not V 9 . ( If 
all things are done by necessity, says she, might 
not Jerusalem have justly answered the Lord, 
Why consume thyself with vain tears? If thou 
wast unwilling that we should listen to the 
Prophets, why didst thou send them? why im- 
pute to us what has been done by thine own will, 
our necessity V So much for Diatribe. — My reply 
is, granting for the moment, that this inference 
and proof of Diatribe's is good and true; what is 
proved, pray? that approvable opinion, which 
says that Freewill cannot will good? Why, here 
is proved a will that is free, every whit whole, 
and able to do every thing w T hich the Prophets 
have spoken ! Diatribe did not take upon herself 
to prove this sort of will in man. Nay, let 
Diatribe herself be the respondent here, and let 
her tell us why, if Freewill cannot will good, it 
is imputed to her that she did not hear the Pro- 
phets ; whom, as being teachers of good, it was 
not possible for her to hear, through her own 
strength ? Why does Christ weep vain tears," 1 as 
though they could have willed, what he assuredly 
knew that they could not will ? Let Diatribe 
deliver Christ from a charge of madness, I say, 
in support of that approvable opinion of hers, and 
straightway our opinion will have been liberated 
from this Achilles of the flies. So that this text 

m Luther seems to have confounded this passage in Matt, 
xxiii. with Luke xix. 41 — 44. <c And when he was come near,, he 
beheld the city, and wept over it." &c: &c. It is remarkable 
that the words which are so closely parallel in Luke xiii. were 
not spoken at the same time with those recorded in Matt, xxiii. 
The latter were spoken in the Temple at the close of the 
Lord's public ministry : the former, whilst he was yet in 
Galilee. 



202 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. of Matthew either proves a complete Freewill, or 

fights against Diatribe herself, as stoutly as against 

us, and lays her prostrate with her own weapons." 
I assert, as I have done before, that the secret 
will of God, as regarded in the majesty of his 
own nature, is not matter of debate ;° and that 
the rashness of man, which, through a continual 
perverseness, is always leaving necessary topics 
to attack and encounter it, should be called away 
and withdrawn from occupying herself in scruti- 
nizing those secrets of His majesty, which it is 
impossible to penetrate,? seeing He dwelleth in 
light which no man can approach unto ; as Paul 
testifies. (1 Tim. vi. 16.) Let her rather occupy 
herself with the incarnate God, or (as Paul speaks) 
with Jesus the crucified : in whom are all the 
treasures of wisdom and knowledge, but hiddenly. q 
He will teach her abundantly what she ought to 
know, and what not. It is the incarnate God 
then, which speaks here. C J would, and thou 
wouldest not.' The incarnate God, I say, was 
sent into the world for this purpose, that he might 
be willing, that he might speak, that he might 
do, that he might suffer, that he might offer r all 



n Suo Mam jaculo.~\ Nothing less than a complete Freewill 
can repel the objection here brought by Diatribe : therefore, 
either there is a complete Freewill — which she denies- — or all 
such objections have no weight at all. 

° Luther expresses this more briefly, but obscurely: 'de 
secreta ilia voluntate majestatis non esse disputandum.' . 

p Scrutandis. attingere.^ Send, comes nearest to our c rum- 
mage :' f videtur esse a scrutis, quasi sit ita in loco aliquo 
praetentare, et versare omnia, ut etiam scruta misceantur.' 
Hence applied to a dog hunting by the scent. . It expresses 
the search for a thing, rather than the improper handling of 
the thing found. So Luther applies it here j as is plain from 
{ attingere : ' ' the attaining to, or reaching the thing which 
was gone after.' 

i See 1 Cor. i. 23. ii. 2. Coloss. ii. 3. In this latter text, 
Luther gives the sense strictly according to the original, which 
our version does not ; £v to elai. . . . a,7roKpv(pot' 

r See above, Sect, xxiii. note *. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 203 

things which are necessary for salvation, unto all sect. 
men : although he stumbles upon many, who, XXXIL 
being either left or hardened by that secret will ' 

of His majesty, receive him not ; willing as he is, 
speaking, working, offering as he does : which is 
just what John says, i The light shineth in dark- 
ness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not:' 
and again, ' He came unto his own, and his own 
received him not/ 

Thus, it is the act of this incarnate God to 
weep, wail, and groan over the destruction of the 
wicked, whilst the will of Majesty leaves and re- 
probates some, on purpose that they may perish : 
nor ought we to inquire why he does so, but to 
reverence God, who is both able and willing to do 
such things. — No one, I suppose, will here cavil, 
that the will of which it is said, f how often would 
1/ was exhibited to the Jews even before God's 
incarnation; inasmuch as they are charged with 
having slain the Prophets which lived before 
Christ, and, by so doing, with having resisted 
his will. Christians know, that every thing 
which was done by the Prophets was done by 
them in the name of that Christ which was to 
come; of whom it had been promised that he 
should become the incarnate God. So that what- 
soever has been offered to man by the ministers 
of the word from the beginning of the world, may 
be rightly called the will of Christ. 3 

6 Luther gives two answers to this cavil from Matt, xxiii. — 
1. It is equally inconsistent with Diatribe's statement. \ 2. It 
is the incarnate God, not the God of Majesty, who here 
speaks. I must strongly object to this latter solution. It im- 
plies a difference, nay a contrariety, between the mind of 
God and the mind of Christ ; and thus destroys the very end 
for which Christ came — even the manifestation of God as His 
express image — by not only negativing the fulfilment of that 
design, but absolutely intimating that he has given us false 
views of God, by shewing a mind which is the reverse of His : 
as though He willed salvation, where God wills destruction. 
Yet he tells us, ' ' I came not to do mine own will but the will 
of Him that sent me." " My meat is to do the will of Him 
that sent me, and to finish his work." " I do nothing of my- 



204 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. But reason, who is quick-scented and saucy, 

will say here, c An admirable refuge this, which 

SECT. 

XXXIII. self j but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these thing's." 

" I have manifested thy name unto the men that thou gavest 

The reality me out of the world." And truly, though we shall know far 

of God's more of God hereafter than we can know here — so that " Whe- 

secret will t j ier t nere De knowledge, it shall vanish away" — our knowledge 

maintained of God ghall gtin be derived to us through Christ ('< the lamb 

which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall 
lead them unto living fountains of waters"), and we shall never 
know any thing of God contrary to that which Jesus has exhi- 
bited of Him. 

The true answer to this cavil, however, has in substance 
been given already. (See Sect, xxviii. notes l v x .) God 
standing in peculiar relations to Israel, as his typical nation 
and his visible church, had from the beginning been calling 
that people to repentance. Their history, their institutions, 
their lively oracles, their ordinary and extraordinary ministers, 
had caused them to be peculiarly, and above the rest of man- 
kind, without excuse, even before Christ came. These were 
so many ' I woulds, and ye would nots :' not Christ saying 
and willing one thing, and the Father another ; but ] Christ 
by the Father's commandment calling to them, and they re- 
fusing. But now he had come personally and visibly amongst 
them, and could say, ' ( If I had not come and spoken unto them, 
they had not had sin, but now they have no cloak for their sin. 
He that hateth me, hateth my Father also. If I had not done 
amongst them the works which none other man did, they had 
not had sin ; but now have they both seen and hated both me 
and my Father." (John xv. 22 — 24.) And what is all this, 
but God in certain assumed relations uttering his voice to those 
connected with him by these relations (in other words, declar- 
ing his legislative will), which those, to whom it is uttered, 
ought without doubt to obey ; and which if they did obey, they 
would according to his promise live. But ' ought to obey' is 
not ' therefore have power to obey ;' and f have not power to 
obey,' is not ' therefore the command is given in vain.' Here 
is, man manifested j and God, by his dealings with him. If 
Israel ( would,' he would have been gathered ; if Jerusalem 
' would,' she would have remained unto this day. But it was 
only by a grace not belonging to those relations by which God 
had at that period connected himself with Israel, that Israel 
could then have been made willing : he had all given to him 
which belonged to those relations ; to withhold trial, or to 
administer super-creation and super-covenant grace that he 
might stand, was no part of the dues which God had made 
himself debtor to him to perform -, and therefore Israel — justly, 
and no more than justly, tried — having manifested what was in 
him with such aggravations of guilt, incurred a sentence which 
is declared to have been the requital of all the righteous blood 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 205 

you have discovered : so then, as often as you are sect. 
pressed by the force of your adversary's argu- ' 

tli.it had been shed upon the earth from Abel to Zecharias. 
(vv. 35, 36.) — The guilt of that generation was indeed ex- 
treme ; but who shall say that it was not the concentrated 
guilt of the intermediate ages and generations of that people,, 
together with their own, which was so shortly to be visited 
upon them ? Carnal reason will not hear of the children being 
visited for their fathers' sin ; but both Scripture and ex- 
perience testify this reality to the spiritual mind. — The 
incarnate God, then, has no will contrary to the God of Ma- 
jesty; or more intelligibly, Christ's will and the Father's 
are one ; Christ's tears (see above, note m ) imply not any 
repugnance to the divine counsel ; the legislative is here, as 
in the former instances, the executor of the personal will. — 
With respect to the tears which he shed over that woe which 
he was shortly to inflict, and of which he well knew the length 
and breadth, the depth and height ; it may be remarked, that 
the Lord Jesus had a human soul, as part of his complete 
human person, distinct from his divine person (See Part ii. 
Sect. viii. note r )j and that such expressions might, without 
impropriety, be referred to that part of his complex frame. 
" We have not an high priest which cannot be touched with 
the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted 
like as we are, yet without sin." He had all the sinless feelings 
of a man, and might therefore not incongruously weep at such 
a woe. But where is the contradiction to Scripture and right 
reason in understanding God himself to be moved with com- 
passion at the very grief and pain which He in just judgment 
inflicts ? cc Therefore my bowels are troubled for him." 
" Have I any pleasure at all in the death of him that dieth ?" 
" For he doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of 
men." 

It is pleasing to notice, how nearly Luther approximates to 
the truth — viz. e That Christ was eternally fore-ordained as 
Christ, and did by a covenant subsistence assume his person 
and personal relations, as the risen God-man, before the foun- 
dation of the world' — in the defence which he makes against 
the cavil, ' Christ was not yet come.' He declares that every 
thing was done by the Prophets in Plis name, and that, all 
expressions of mercy from the beginning may be rightly called 
the will of Christ : which will, according to his representation 
of it, is perfectly distinct from that of the Father (his language 
implies, contrary to it), so that there must have been a dis- 
tinct agency of Christ from the beginning. Verily, this is so ; 
though not exactly as he understood and would have repre- 
sented it : and I have often been surprised that, whilst most of 
those who know any thing of Christ are ready enough to ac- 
knowledge, that regard was had to his sacrifice from the begin- 



206 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. ments, you have but to run back to this terrible 
will of sovereignty, and you compel your an- 
tagonist to silence, when he has become trouble- 
some; just as the astrologers evade all questions 
about the motions of the whole heavens, by their 
invention of Epicycles.' 1 

I answer, i It is not my invention but a direction 
confirmed by the divine Scriptures. Thus speaks 

ning (for how else could any soul of man, as Abel, Enoch, 
Abraham, David, &c. &c. have been pardoned and accepted) ; 
so few distinctly recognise his personal subsistence and agency, 
as Christ, from the same period ; although it be in this regard 
that he is called " the Word," " the Word of life," " the life," 
" that eternal life," &c. and although a distinct personal agent, to 
use the blessed materials of his future coming and dying in the 
flesh — as a Priest-king — was not less necessary to the salvation 
and glorification of every individual of the saved who lived and 
died before those events had been realized ; than was the article 
of his death. — In what Luther says about abstaining from what 
he calls ' the secret will of majesty,' he speaks indistinctly, 
injuriously, and contradictorily : indistinctly, because there is 
an use as well as an abuse of such inquiries, which he ought to 
have discriminated ; injuriously, because his observations would 
go the length of deterring men from even the recognition of such 
a will, and so would mar the joy and fear and gratitude and love 
of the Lord's people ; contradictorily, because he afterwards re- 
cognises and makes assertions about it. Christ forsooth impinges 
upon some of God's reprobates ! — Still, a hint or two may be 
borrowed with advantage from Luther's statement. God, in 
addressing himself to the world as he does by the ' every where 
to be preached ' Gospel, does clearly set himself forth to as 
many as have a heart in any degree softened and turned to- 
wards him, in the form and character of the Father of mercies 
not willing that any should perish. Such ought not to be de- 
terred and affrighted by the knowledge that he has his repro- 
bates. The melting heart is not the heart of a reprobate. 
But is he to shut his eyes to the fact that God has his 
reprobates ? Nay, that fact combined with the consciousness 
of his own personal impotency, turns unto him for a testimony. 
Neither can he regard God as he ought now, or in any future 
stage of his experience, without it ; for without it, the God 
whom he serves is not the true God. 

1 Epicycles.'] * A little circle, whose centre is in the circum- 
ference of a greater : or a small orb, which, being fixed in the 
deferent of a planet, carries it round its own axis, whilst it is 
itself carried round the axis of the planet. — An invention of 
some bungling philosophers to account for the anomalies of 
planetary motion.' 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 207 

Paul in Rom. ix. "Why doth God complain sect. 
then ? Who shall resist his will ? O man, who art XXXIIL 
thou that contendest with God ?» " Hath not the 
potter power?" and the rest. And before him, 
Isaiah, in his 58th chapter, had said, " For they 
seek me daily, and desire to know my ways, as a 
nation which hath done righteousness : they ask 
of me the ordinances of justice, and desire to draw 
near to God." In these words, I imagine, it is 
abundantly shewn to us, that it is not lawful for 
man to scrutinize the will of sovereignty. 11 Be- 
sides, this question is of a kind which most of all 
leads perverse men to attack that awful will ; so 
that it is especially seasonable to exhort them to 
silence and reverence, when we prosecute it. In 
other questions, where the matters treated of are 
such as admit of explanation, and such as we are 
commanded to explain, I do not proceed so. 

Now if a man will not yield to my admonition, but 
persists in scrutinizing the counsels v of that will, 

u This text does not seem to bear upon the point in hand ; 
viz. that we ought not to scrutinize the personal will of God ; 
or, as he terms it, ' the will of majesty/ or sovereignty. 
Luther understands e their seeking of God daily, and desiring 
to know his ways, and asking of him the ordinances of justice j 
as if they not only complained of God's appointments towards 
them being unjust, but were prying curiously into the secret 
springs of them. But does God, speaking by his Prophet, 
really mean any more than that they were hypocrites and 
formalists, yet expected the acceptance of true and devout 
worshippers ? Accordingly they were answered by shewing 
them that their fasts were not such as he had chosen, and that 
the worship which he accepts is the reverse of theirs. c Ask 
of me the ordinances of justice,' are the only words which 
bear at all upon the subject ; and these do not necessarily 
imply, or with any probability here imply, * a spirit of 
curiousness.' 

v Rationem scrutari.'] Rat. More literally, the method of that 
will. ' Ratio ' expresses most nearly the ' all about it.' Scrut. 
(see last Section, note p) does not necessarily denote a bad 
state of mind ; though clearly so here : a mind which doubts 
the fact that God has such a will, questions his right to have 
it, and cavils at its decisions. To inquire what the word of 
God has recorded concerning this will with deep reverence ; 



208 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. I let him go on and fight with God, as the giants 

did of old ; waiting to see what sort of triumphs 

he carries off, and very sure in the mean time, 
that he will withdraw nothing from our cause, and 
confer nothing upon his own. For it will remain 
fixed, that either he must prove Freewill to be 
capable of doing every thing, or the Scriptures 
which he quotes must contradict his own position. 
Whichsoever of these be the issue, he lies pros- 
trate as the conquered man, and I am found 
standing upon my feet, as the conquerors 
sect. Your second text is Matthew xix. 17. " If thou 
xxxiv. w «jj. en t er j n £ }jf e ^ keep the commandments." 

Matt xix 'With what face could it be said, "If thou 
j 7. and wilt," to a man whose will is not free/ So says 
other like Diatribe, 
considered. To whom I reply ; does this saying of Christ's 

and meekly, rejoicingly, to submit to that record -, would not be 
making war as the giants of old did against Jupiter. 

x See here a confirmation of my remark in Sect, xxviii. note 1 , 
that it is against the impugners and deniers of that will which 
is distinct from God's legislative will, not against its sober 
investigators and maintainers, that Luther is protesting ! His 
answer to the cavil from Matt, xxiii. and like passages is, 
' Aye, but there is another will behind this, which is contrary 
to this, and which we must be content to leave, with asserting 
it. God as revealed, or, as he afterwards describes him, 
Christ, the incarnate God, wills only life ; but there is another 
will of God, a will not expressed by this incarnate God, which 
wills death j and therefore these things which appear to prove 
Freewill (by inference) may still be said, and yet man be in 
bondage : because, whilst he deplores, he doth also not deplore. 
This latter will is not to be searched into, or acted upon ; it is 
only to be asserted and believed: deny it, if you dare ; you 
will only be running your head against the wall, making war 
against God. — For objections to this statement, and for a more 
consistent answer to the cavil, &c. &c. see note s of the last 
Section. — Luther says worse than he means, but he means 
ignorantly. It had not been given him to know the mystery of 
God and the Father, and of Christ : He did not understand how 
that God is not hiding himself behind Christ, but making himself 
seen in Christ 5 so that it shall be truly said, " He that hath 
seen me hath seen the Father : if ye had known me, ye should 
have known my Father also ; and from henceforth ye know 
him, and have seen him." (John xiv. 9. 7-) 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 209 

then establish that the will is free ? Why, you sect. 

XYY1V 

meant to prove that Freewill can will nothing- 
good, and will necessarily serve sin, if grace 
be out of the way. With what face then do you 
now make it all free ? 

The same shall be said to the words, ' If thou 
wilt be perfect/ c if any man will come after me/ 
* whosoever will save his soul/ ' if ye love me/ '- if 
ye abide in me/ (Nay, let all the conjunctions € if/ 
and all the imperative verbs, as I have said/' be 
collected together — by way of assisting Diatribe in 
the number, at least, of her quotations.) 6 All these 
precepts are unmeaning/ she says, if nothing be 
attributed to the human will. How ill does that 
conjunction, 'if' agree with mere necessity I' 

I answer ; if they be unmeaning, it is your own 
fault that they are so, or rather are nothing at all : 
you make this nonentity of them by asserting that 
nothing is ascribed to the human will, so long as 
you represent that Freewill cannot will good, and 
here on the other hand representing, that it can 
will all good ; unless it be, that the same words 
are both hot and cold in the same instant, as 
you use them, at once asserting every thing and 
denying every thing. a Trulyl am at a loss to think, 
why an author should have been pleased to say the 
same thing so many times over, forgetting his 
thesis perpetually, unless perchance, through 
mistrust of his cause, he had a mind to gain the 
victory by the size of his book, or to wear out 
his adversary by making it tedious and burthen- 
some to peruse. — By what sort of consequence, I 
would ask, does it follow that will and power must 

y See above, Sect. xx. 

2 Frigent.'] See above, Sect. xxix. note y. 

a It is you who take away all warmth and life from such 
passages as these, by making the will a contradiction • it can 
do nothing, it can do all things : these assertions destroy each 
other, and leave a nought as the result, unless they mean op- 
posite things, such as ' yes/ and ' no,' at the same instant. 

P 



210 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. forthwith be present to the soul, as often as it is 

said, f If thou wilt/ 'if a man will/ ' if thou 

shalt be willing/ Do not we most frequently 
denote impotency and impossibility, rather than 
the contrary, by such expressions ? As in these 
examples: 'If thou wilt equal Virgil in singing, 
my Msevius, thou must sing other songs ; f ' If thou 
wilt surpass Cicero, my Scotus, thou must ex- 
change thy subtilties for the most consummate 
eloquence ; f 'If thou wilt be compared with David, 
thou must utter Psalms like his/ By these con- 
ditionals, it is plain that things impossible of 
attainment to our own powers are denoted, 
whilst by a divine power all things are possible to 
us. Thus it is with the Scriptures also : what 
may be done in us by the power of God, and 
what we cannot do of ourselves, is declared by 
such like words. 

Besides, if such things were said about actions 
absolutely impossible, as those which even God 
also would never at any time do by us, then 
would they be rightly called either cold or ridi- 
culous, as being said to no purpose. But the 
truth is, these expressions are used not only to 
show the impotency of Freewill, which causes 
that none of these things be done by us ; but at 
the same time to intimate that all such things are, 
at some time or other, about to be and to be 
done — howbeit by another's power, even God's : 
if we quite admit that there is in such like 
words some intimation of things which are to 
be done, and which are possible. As if a man 
should interpret them thus : ' If thou shalt be wil- 
ling to keep the commandments / that is, e If thou 
shalt at some time possess a will (thou wilt pos- 
sess it however, not of thyself, but of God — who 
will give it to whom it shall be his will to give it) 
to keep the commandments, they also shall pre- 
serve thee/ Or, to speak more freely, these verbs, 
particularly the conjunctive verbs, seem to be 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 211 

inserted thus on account of God's predestination sect. 
also — as being that which we do not know — and to ' XVr 
involve it : as if they should mean to say, c If " 
thou wilt/ ' If thou shalt be willing' — that is, 'If 
thou shalt be such in the sight of God as that he 
shall count thee worthy of this will to keep the 
commandments — thou shalt be saved/ Each of 
these two things is couched under this trope : b 
namely, that, on the one hand we can do nothing 
of ourselves ; and on the other, whatever we do, 
God worketh it in us. I should speak thus to 
those who would not be content to have it said, 
that our impotency only is expressed by these 
words, but would maintain, that a certain power 
and ability of doing those things w T hich are en- 
joined, is proved by them. Thus it would at once 
be true, that we could do none of the things com- 
manded, and could at the same time do all of 
them; if we should apply the former assertion to 
our own powers, the latter to the grace of God. c 

Thirdly, Diatribe is affected by this consider- Erasmus's 
ation : ' Where there is such frequent mention objection 
of good and bad works, says she ; where there cepts P are 
is mention of reward ; I do not see how there can given, and 

b Tropo.'] Any figurative mode of speech, as opposed to one 
that is plain, simple, and straight forward -, whatever be the 
particular nature of the obliquity ; whether grammatical, as 
here ; or rhetorical. 

c Luther gives three answers to these texts. 1. Erasmus 
inconsistent with himself. 2. They teach human impotency. 
3. They insinuate the possibility of divine help, and glance at 
his predestinative favour. — In some instances, doubtless, as in 
Matthew xix. and its parallels (Mark x. Luke xviii.), a peculiar 
design may also be traced — the teaching of the natural man's 
impotency, and the hint at what God, according to his eternal 
purpose, will do in his people — but all these, multifarious as they 
are, maybe resolved into, ' the Lawgiver speaks :' whose voice 
implies not either power in man, or promise in God. The end 
is not always conviction of sin in mercy ; sometimes it is 
<s whom he will he hardeneth ;" but always, it is man made 
to shew what he is, unto the more perfect manifestation of God 
by him. See Sect, xxviii. notes t T x . 

p2 



212 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART III 

merit is 
ascribed 
to Free- 
will, consi- 
dered. — 
Erasmus 
inconsist- 
ent with 
himself. 



SECT. 
XXXVI. 

New Tes- 
tament 
precepts 
are ad- 
dressed to 
the con- 



be place for mere necessity. ' Neither nature, 
nor necessity, says she, hath merit.' d 

Nor do I forsooth understand how there can 
be this place ; save, that the ' approvable opinion* 
asserts mere necessity in saying that Freewill can 
will nothing good, but here attributes even merit 
to it. Freewill has made such advances during 
the growth of this book and disputation of Dia- 
tribe's, that now she not only has desire and 
endeavour for her own (howbeit, by a strength 
not her own); nay, she not only wills and does 
good, but even merits eternal life ; because Christ 
says in the fifth of St. Matthew (ver. 12), " Re- 
joice and be exceeding glad, for your reward is 
abundant in the heavens." Your reward ; that is, 
FreewilPs reward : for so Diatribe understands 
this text, making Christ and the Spirit to be 
nothing; for what need is there of these, if we 
have good works and merits through Freewill ? — I 
mention this, that we may see how common it is 
for men of excellent abilities to be wont to show 
a blindness in matters which are manifest to even 
a dull and uncultivated mind ; and how weak 
an argument drawn from human authority is, in 
divine things : where divine authority alone has 
weight. 6 

Two distinct topics must here be spoken to : 
first, the precepts of the New Testament; and 
secondly, merit. I shall dispatch each of these in 
few words, having spoken of them rather pro- 
lixly on other occasions. The New Testament 
properly consists of promises and exhortations, 
just as the Old properly consists of laws and 

d Natura, necessitas.'] By ( nature/ in this connection, I sup- 
pose he means ' an inherent-, settled, constitution of things/ 
which produces actions involuntarily : by ' necessity,' ' a com- 
pulsory influence' exercised upon such a constitution, from 
without. 

e The inconsistency is Erasmus's : his Freewill is necessity -, 
but, according to him, is the subject of reward. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 213 

threatening. For, in the New Testament, the sect. 
Gospel is preached ; which is nothing else but a ' 
discourse offering the Spirit, together with grace, verted not 
unto that remission of sins which hath been to those in 
obtained for us by the crucifixion of Christ : and Freewi11 - 
all this gratuitously, because the mercy only of God 
the Father befriends us, unworthy as we are, and 
deserving damnation, as we do, rather than any 
thing else. Then follow exhortations, to stir up 
those who are already justified, and have obtained 
mercy, unto a strenuousness in bringing forth the 
fruits of that freely bestowed righteousness and 
of the Spirit, and unto the acting of love in the 
performance of good works, and unto the bearing 
of the cross and of all the other tribulations of 
the world with a good courage. This is the sum 
of all the New Testament. — How entirely ignorant 
Diatribe is of this matter, she abundantly shows 
in not knowing how to make the least difference 
between the Old Testament and the New ; for 
she sees almost nothing in either, save laws 
and precepts, by which men are to be formed to 
good manners. What new birth is ;.. what re- 
newal, regeneration, and the whole work of the 
Spirit ; she sees not at all : to my utter wonder 
and astonishment, that a man who has laboured 
so long and so studiously in the Scriptures should 
be so perfectly ignorant of them. 

So then, this saying, " Rejoice and be exceed- 
ing glad, for much is your reward in the hea- 
vens," squares just about as well with Freewill as 
light agrees with darkness. For Christ therein 
exhorts not Freewill, but his Apostles (who not 
only were in a state above Freewill, as being 
already partakers of grace and just persons ; but 
were even established in the ministry of the word; 
that is, in the highest station of grace), to bear the 
tribulations of the world. But we are engaged 
in discussing Freewill, specially as she subsists 
without grace; who is instructed by laws and 
threatenings (that is, by the Old Testament) into 



214 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. the knowledge of herself, that she may run to the 
" promises set forth in the New/ 

f Such is Luther's representation of the New Testament as 
contrasted with the Old, and of the Gospel. The New is 
' promises and exhortations }' the Old is ' law and threaten- 
ing. ' The Gospel is ' the Spirit, and grace unto salvation, 
offered to all men ; through Christ, who died for all.'* — For 
some objections to this statement, as it respects ' offers of 
grace,' see above, Sect, xxiii. note a ; as it respects the oppo- 
sition between the Law and the Gospel, see above, Sect. xxiv. 
note \ — The Gospel is certainly to be preached to all ; to the 
reprobate as well as to the elect ; but with what propriety this 
can be called ' an offer of grace ' to all, or to any, may be fairly 
questioned : much more, with what consistency such language 
can be used by one who so stoutly maintained, as Luther did, 
both the impotency of the natural man, and the God-made 
difference between the elect and the reprobate. With such views 
as Luther had of the atonement, as though Christ had shed his 
blood for those from whom it was the Father's good pleasure 
to hide the mysteries of his kingdom -, and with such a want 
of insight into the first principle of divine counsel, operation, 
and revelation — even God's design of manifesting himself 5 
in short, with such a want of insight into God 3 it was im- 
possible that he should not speak inconsistently. Indeed it 
would be little, if inconsistency were all. Such language is 
illusive, perplexing, and subversive to man j and, whilst it 
aims to beautify God, defames him ! He is correct, however, 
to some considerable extent : he nobly asserts, that salva- 
tion is altogether gratuitous, the produce of the Father's 
mercy, conferred upon the hell- deserving through the alone 
merit of Christ's death. He nobly asserts, that the precep- 
tive parts of the New Testament are for the called and jus- 
tified only. — But why is the Old Testament to be thus set in 
array against the New ? Where is ' the law and threaten- 
ings ' in the book of Genesis ? What more truly Evangelical 
Words are to be found in the New Testament, than in Isaiah 
and the other Prophets ; in the Psalms, and in Luther's favour- 
ite book of Deuteronomy ? f The Old Testament, as our 
7th Article wisely speaks, is not contrary to the New : for 
both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered 
to mankind by Christ, who is the only mediator between God 
and man, being both God and man.' — The truth is, even the 
Law itself, as I have already remarked, is ' Gospel in enigma/ 
and the scribe that is instructed in the New Testament finds 
the Old its best commentator and confirmerj what has in- 
structed the same family in its tenderer years, and now makes 
the " young men" perfect. — I should speak rather differently 

* Note, he distinguishes between the Spirit and grace, though not very 
correctly ; it is the Spirit as given to the justified, of which he speaks : but 
this is part of the grace of God ; that is, " of the things which are freely 
given to us of God." 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 215 

But as to merit, or a reward being proposed, sect. 
what is this but a sort of promise? This proves XXXVIL 
not that we have any power; for nothing else is Merit and 
expressed by it, but that, if a man shall have done reward 
this or that thing, then he shall have a reward. ™ a y c .°£- 
But our question is, not koiv* a reward, or what necessity. 
sort of a reward, shall be rendered to a man ; but 
whether we can do those things to which a 
reward is rendered. This was the thing to be 
proved. Is it not a ridiculous consequence : 
The reward of the judge is proposed to all that 
are in the course; therefore all can run and ob- 
tain ? If Caesar shall have conquered the Turk, 
he shall enjoy the kingdom of Syria: therefore 
Caesar can conquer, and does conquer the Turk. 
If Freewill rules over sin, it shall be holy to the 
Lord ; therefore Freewill is holy to the Lord. — 
But I will say no more about these superlatively 
stupid and palpably absurd reasonings ; save, that 
it is most worthy of Freewill to be defended by 
such exquisite arguments. Let me rather speak 
to this point ; that c necessity has neither merit, 

of the Apostles. They were to be what he describes, with 
the exception of one of them ; but they ivere not this yet. 
If they could be truly said to know Christ at all, till the day 
of Pentecost was fully come, they knew him " after the flesh." 
(2 Cor. v. 16.) But it is not to the Twelve exclusively, that 
the Lord addresses these words (Matt. v. 12.), nor of them 
exclusively that he speaks. His precepts were for the regu- 
lation of their conduct, and of the conduct of all his converted 
people (whilst walking through the wilderness of this world 
in his kingdom), as they should hereafter be called, one by one, 
into vital union with him : that union, of which his elect have 
the sacrament in their baptism, but the reality, when either 
before or after the receiving of that sacrament, the Spirit has 
been given, to convert and to dwell in them. — Luther's argu- 
ment, however, is not shaken by this distinction. The Lord 
speaks as to real members of his kingdom ; to persons there- 
fore, who are above and beyond that state of Freewill which is 
the matter of dispute. — Already Luther has shewn Erasmus in- 
consistent with himself in arguing from this text (see Sect. 
xxxv.) : his second answer is, ' this text (to which all other 
New Testament precepts might be added) does not apply.' 

* Quo modo.~] How, in point of action 5 what he must do ; 
that he may be entitled. 



216 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. n0 r reward/ If we speak of a necessity of com- 
' pulsion, it is true : if we speak of a necessity of 
immutability, it is false. 11 Who would give a 
reward, or impute merit, to an unwilling work- 
man? But to those who wilfully do good or evil, 
even though they cannot change this will by their 
own power, there follows, naturally and neces- 
sarily, reward or punishment; as it is written, 
" Thou wilt render unto every man according to 
his works." It follows naturally, ' if you plunge 
into water, you will be suffocated ; if you swim 
out, you will save your life.' 

To be brief; in the matter of merit, or reward, 
the inquiry is either about the worthiness, or 
about the consequence, of actions. If you look 
at worthiness, there is no such thing as merit ; 
there is no such thing as reward. For, if Free- 
will can will nothing good of itself, and wills good 
only through grace (we are speaking, you know, 
of Freewill as separate from grace, and are in- 
quiring what power is proper to each), who does 
not see that this good will, together with its 
merit and its reward, is of grace only? And 
here again, Diatribe is at variance with herself in 
arguing the freedom of the will from merit, and 
is in the same condemnation with me whom she 
opposes : since it fights equally against herself 
as against me, that there is merit, that there is 
reward, that there is liberty; after she has asserted, 
as she does above, that Freewill can will nothing 
good, and has undertaken to prove such a sort of 
Freewill. 

If you look at the consequences of actions, 
there is nothing either good or bad, which has not 
its reward. And we get into mistakes from this 
cause, that, in speaking of merits and rewards, 
we agitate useless considerations and questions 
about the worth of actions — which is none — when 

h For this distinction, see above, Part i. Sect. xi. Sect. 

XXV. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED, 217 

we ought to be debating only about the conse- sect. 
quences of them. For hell and the judgment of XXXVI1 - 
God await the wicked by a necessary conse- " 
quence, even though they themselves neither de- 
sire, nor think of such a reward for their sins; 
nay, though they exceedingly detest and, as Peter 
says, execrate iV In like manner, the kingdom 
awaits the godly, though they neither seek it, nor 
think of it themselves; being a possession pre- 
pared for them of their Father, not only before 
they were themselves in existence, but even be- 
fore the foundation of the world. 

Nay, if these latter were doing good that they 
might obtain the kingdom, they never would 
obtain it; and would belong rather to the com- 
munity of the wicked, who, with an evil and 
mercenary eye, " seek their own," k even in 
God. But the sons of God do good through a 
gratuitous good pleasure ; not seeking any re- 
ward, but simply seeking the glory, and aiming 
to do the will, of God : they are prepared to do 
good, even though according to an impossible 
supposition, there were no such thing as either 
kingdom or hell-fire. I think these things are 
quite sure from that single saying of Christ in 
Matt. xxv. " Come ye blessed of my Father, 
receive the kingdom, which hath been prepared 

1 Detestentur, execrentur .~] For proper meaning of ' detes- 
tor,' see above, Part i. Sect. vii. note l . It is opposed to 
( obtestor ;* as calling God to witness, unto evil and not unto 
good. ' Malum alicui imprecari, Deos testes ciendo ; c execrari.* 
Here, however, I understand it literally, according to its 
derived meaning ; and so, ' exsecror ;' which properly denotes 
( removing out of sacred relations,' or subjecting to a curse. — 
The allusion is to 2 Pet. ii. 10 — 15. " But these. . . . speak evil 
of the things they understand not, and shall utterly perish in 
their own corruption ; and shall receive the reward of un- 
righteousness." B\da<j)7)iLi§i>Te?. The original text makes the 
reference plainer than our version. 

k " All seek their own, not the things which are Jesus 
Christ's." (Phil. ii. 21.) Not content with seeking their own 
glory, &c. &c. in their dealings with man, they seek it even 
from the hands of God : He is to do them good, not himself. 



218 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. for you from the foundation of the world/ 5 How 

■ do they earn that, which is even now theirs, and 

which was prepared for them before they were 
born ? So that we should speak more correctly, 
if we should say, the kingdom of God doth 
rather earn us for its possessors, than we it ; 
placing merit where they place reward, and 
reward where they place merit. For the king- 
dom is not to be prepared, but hath been pre- 
pared ; but the children of the kingdom are to be 
prepared, not themselves to prepare the king- 
dom: that is, the kingdom earns her children, 
not the children the kingdom. Hell, in like man- 
ner, doth rather earn her children, and prepare 
them, than they it ; since Christ says, " Depart 
ye cursed into everlasting fire, which hath been 
prepared for the devil and his angels." 1 

1 Erasmus objects, that e so much mention of good works 
and reward, in Scripture, is inconsistent with mere necessity j 
which can have no merit.' 

Luther answers, though not exactly in this order : 1. Merit 
and reward are as inconsistent with your Freewill (which can 
will nothing good) as with mine. 2. Reward is a matter of 
promise $ which implies nothing of power, the alone thing in 
question. 3. Merit and reward are not inconsistent with a 
necessity of immutability, though they be inconsistent with a 
necessity of compulsion. (See above, note h .) Merit is not 
necessarily merit of worth ; reward may be a consequence of 
actions, in which there is no merit of worth. 4. The king- 
doms of heaven and hell earn their children, severally 5 not 
they them. 

The two first of these answers are valid ; and, if it were 
merely so many rounds of the boxer, or so many grapple- 
ments of the wrestler, of which we are watching the result, 
we must give the palm to Luther : he has supplanted, he has 
knocked down his antagonist. But we want to hear some- 
thing against merit and reward : and here, Luther is evasive 
and subtle in his reasoning, though correct in his conclusion. 
Necessity of immutability does not necessarily imply absence 
of merit ; because that which the will cannot do for itself, it 
may be changed by another to do. Luther has supplied the 
basis of a solid and satisfactory answer, in his fourth reply ; 
whilst he has neither opened it, nor appears to be sensible of 
its force and marrow. ( The kingdoms earn their children 
severally, not they them/ 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED, 219 

Then what mean those declarations which pro- sect. 
mise the kingdom and threaten hell ? What xxxvm ; 

Upon Luther's principles, it is impossible to give a solid an- are " uvo _ 
swer to the objection of ' merit.' For, if Christ has died alike m - iscs an( j 
for all 3 if he has done and suffered the same both for the elect threaten- 
and for the reprobate 5 so that there is no difference between ings in 
them, as far as respects his merit (which is the essence of the Scripture, 
doctrine of Universal Redemption) ; then, either there must be 
merit in the individuals of the elect, or there is with God 
repect of persons : he makes a different award to some from 
what he does to others, alike meritorious or unmeritorious, 
through partiality. Nor will it suffice to say (as Luther does), 
this reward is mere matter of consequence, like the man swim- 
ming out of water, &c. God sees somewhere that which makes 
it the demand of His justice that he should put a difference : 
and, since this is not in Christ, it must be in the individuals 
themselves. The true answer is, that God has assumed dis- 
tinct, super-creation relations to his elect, in Christ ; which 
render it imperative upon him to give them grace and glory, 
each in its season. This is the true meaning of the kingdom 
of heaven earning her sons : there are relations of and be- 
longing to that kingdom, which communicate the power that is 
necessary to the inheriting of that kingdom, in consistency 
with all that God is, and to the manifestation of him as that 
God which he is. So again, with respect to the kingdom of 
hell : that kingdom has relations which have procured its in- 
habitants and inheritors. The devil has had a power given to 
him, by which he has drawn legions into his service, and 
is bringing those legions to be his companion in torments -, 
legions, not of devils only, but of reprobate and accursed men : 
from which number, as equally ruined by the devil and self- 
destroyed with the rest, the elect people of God, through their 
super-creation relations to him in Christ, or, as it has just now 
been expressed, through the relations of the kingdom of God 
(of which God, of his distinguishing favour, has given to them 
to be members), are rescued. Merit and reward are made 
nearly as much a stumbling-block to the maintainers of free 
grace, as the sin and impotency of the natural man are to the 
merit-mongers : with this difference, that the stumbling-blocks 
which may be thrown upon the path of truth are superable and 
removable, whilst falsehood may pass by, and cover over, 
but she cannot expose and expel her stumbling-blocks. 
Too often, however, the sincere and strenuous advocates of 
truth defend her cause weakly, and even dangerously. — Who 
will be satisfied, for instance, with that answer to an objection 
brought against the truth, which assumes that there is no such 
thing as " recompense of reward" in the Bible 5 no soldier's 
crown j no servant's wages ; no agonistic palm ; no ' for' to 
the call of the blessed of my Father 5 or that all these things and 



220 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. meaneth that word 6 reward/ so often repeated as 
it is, throughout the Scriptures ? " Thy work 

sayings are resolvable into "what Christ personally hath done , 
and might, if, according to that will of his and of the Father's 
which is represented as no other than perfectly arbitrary, he 
saw fit to do so, be bestowed upon his enemies and blasphemers, 
just as righteously as upon his servant-friends ? (See John 
xv. 15.) 

The true objection to merit and reward is, that, as generally 
understood and represented, they suppose something of good 
in the natural man; in that self-ruined, self-damned, and self- 
made-impotent thing which has merited Hell before he was 
born into the world, and can merit nothing but Hell. — But, 
what now if it please God to give to this self-ruined, self- 
made-impotent thing new powers, under a new relation, and 
by a new title ? Is there any thing to prevent God from 
accepting an equivalent, if such can be found, for that punish- 
ment which is the just reward of this his moral creature's sin - } 
and, of his own free, sovereign and distinguishing favour (as it 
respects the subject of his infinite, everlasting, and inestimable 
bounty), placing him in new relations, and endowing him with 
new capacities as the fruit of those relations ? And why may not 
this new-made creature, so related, so capacitated, and so con- 
nected, act in a manner worthy of those relations, and so entitle 
himself to those results which the God of all grace has seen 
fit to attach to the maintenance and fulfilment of those rela- 
tions \ — This is just the state and case of the eternally fore- 
known, elect, predestinated, given and received people of God, 
in Christ Jesus, their grace and glory Head. Contemplated as 
now already self-destroyed and fallen in Adam ; under express 
sentence of death, with all that awful hereafter which was 
implied though not expressed in that sentence ; the Lord Jesus, 
by making himself sin for them, and dying with them, renders 
it consistent in God to raise them up from the dead, and to 
bring them out into a new state of being, with new relations, 
capacities, enjoyments and privileges, in him. In a figure, 
they are said to have risen with Christ ; in reality, the indubi- 
tability of their future rising was publicly sealed, and manifested 
to the whole world, by his rising : I say publicly, because it 
had been secretly sealed, in the eternal covenant transactions of 
the Three in Jehovah, before the worlds. "This is that grace 
which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." 
(2 Tim. i. 9.) Regeneration, in its most correct view, is a 
partial fulfilment of the personal resurrection of the Lord's 
elect : it is the resurrection of the soul or spirit. u The hour 
is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of 
the Son of God, and they that hear shall live." (John v. 25.) 
By it they are brought into a resurrection state ; are shewn to 
be of those who shall hereafter rise with a body like His, and 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 221 

hath a reward," saith he. " I am thy exceeding; sect. 

"VVVVITT 

great reward." Again; "Who rendereth unto j 

are now called to serve him in an intermediate state,, as " God's 
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which 
God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."'* 
(Ephes. ii. 10.) Thus they are, essentially, grace receivers of 
grace powers, called and enabled to act in a manner worthy of 
a grace reward. Here is reward then, not of mere consequence., 
but of merit : of merit, which has worth or dignity in it, yet is 
all the while grace ; free, distinguishing, sovereign grace. 
Thus grace reigneth ; but it is through righteousness : which, 
means, if the connection of those words be duly observed, not 
merely through Christ's being personally righteous ; but 
through, and in a way of righteousness, as it respects the 
persons of his people. (Rom. v. 20, 21. compare with the whole 
of Rom. vi. which follows, specially from ver. 14 to ver. 23.) — 
Many, doubtless, will cavil at this statement ; but it is for 
lack of distinguishing things which essentially differ ; it is for 
lack of understanding the true nature, origin, design, consti- 
tuent subjects, and provisions of the kingdom of God j it is 
for lack of understanding that the members of that kingdom 
are persons already saved ( ec Who hath saved us, and called 
us with an holy calling;" " for by grace ye are saved 5" 
"unto us which are saved, it is the power of God") 5 not 
men striving for life to get life, but already -living men 5 not 
natural men, but men joined unto the Lord, and who are one 
spirit with him ; which constitute the reward-earning commu- 
nity : concerning whom, it is God's glory that they, being 
brought out, as they are, in the face and heart of the world — 
a world made up of hypocrites, or false professors of his name, 
on the one hand j and of declared enemies and persecutors on 
the other — " should walk worthy of the vocation wherewith 
they are called;" "should walk worthy of God, who hath 
called them to his kingdom and glory ;" " should be counted 
worthy of his kingdom," and should manifest him to be the 
righteous God in recompensing rest (their consummation and 
bliss) to them, when he recompenseth tribulation to them that 
have troubled them." — If this statement be duly apprehended, 

* When we speak of good works, people are apt to run immediately into 
the idea of law works, as if the Ten Commandments were to be brought 
back again : not considering, that good is a relative term ; and that good 
works, therefore, must be those which are consistent with the relations under 
which we stand, when performing them. If it were possible for renewed 
man, in the days of his flesh, to keep the whole law, he would not thereby 
do good works. The law is for creation man ; the Gospel is for super- 
creation man. It is the obedience of a redeemed sinner, to which he is 
called in Christ Jesus ; an obedience analogous to that fuller and more dis- 
tinct manifestation of God, which he has made of himself in his new, after- 
creation kingdom. To this obedience, as many as have been created, or 
builded, in Christ Jesus from the very first, as Abel, &c, have been called 
and brought, according to their measure of faith. 



222 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. every man according to his works." And Paul 
s ~ in Romans ii. saith, " To those who by the 

patience of good works seek for eternal life :" 

and many like sayings. 

The answer is, that all these sayings prove 

nothing but a consequence of reward, and by no 

means a worthiness of merit : m that those, for- 

it will give their legitimate force and meaning to numberless 
passages of Scripture, which some bring forward to contradict 
the truth of God, and others pare down and mutilate to main- 
tain it. — The essence of the distinction too, that the grace 
which earneth reward is truly super-creation grace, furnishes a 
sure test by which to try and convict hypocrites. How com- 
mon is the language, ' O, I know I have nothing that I have 
not received.' Yes, but how hast thou received it ? Grace is 
that principle in the divine mind which makes distinctions : 
grace is not only favour, but free favour ; not only free favour, 
but separating favour -, in the case we are considering, is sepa- 
rating favour, shewn in a way of mercy 5 that is, shewn to those 
who have deserved a contrary sort of treatment. Hast thou 
received then by a new and super-creation title 5 which puts 
a difference between Adam's alike self-destroyed and wholly- 
destroyed sons ? Or, is it that thou hast cultivated thy natural 
powers j or, if it pleaseth thee rather, hast improved that gos- 
pel-grace which is bestowed on all, and has put all into a 
capacity of working out their own salvation ? The answer 
will unmask the man : grace knows itself, and knows its 
origin. 

In asserting that the kingdom of hell has earned, and is earn- 
ing, its subjects through a power which God has given to the 
devil, I would be understood to intimate that the devil could 
neither be, nor continue to be, without the will of God ; and 
that hell is filled through his agency : by which, in perfect 
consistency with all creation relations and obligations, ruin 
was originally brought upon man ; and by which he secures 
and retains to himself that spoil, which it is the Father's good 
pleasure that he should carry off, to his glory. 

m Sequelam mercedis, meriti dignitatem.'] The expression seems 
inverted ; l worthiness of merit,' for merit which has worth in 
it : the meaning clearly is f reward follows as a consequence, 
but there is nothing of meritorious worthiness in the subject.' 
Luther, in what follows, overstates the matter of disinterested- 
ness j and afterwards virtually contradicts himself. We are 
not called to be insensible to the end, but urged to keep it in 
view j and why, but as a source of encouragement ? which he 
presently affirms. What, indeed, is that f following because, 1 
but an admission of the same thing ? — The cure for servility 
is, " to the praise of the glory of his grace"--*' saved 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 223 

sooth, who do good, do it not through a servile sect. 
and mercenary disposition to gain eternal life, but xxvn ' 
still seek eternal life ; that is, are in the way by 
which they shall arrive at and obtain eternal life. 
So that, to seek eternal life, is painfully to strive, 
and with urgent labour to endeavour, because it 
is wont to follow after a good life. Now, the 
Scriptures declare that these things will take 
place, and will follow after a good or evil life; in 
order that men may be instructed, admonished, 
excited, terrified : for, as by the law is the know- 
ledge of sin and admonishment of our impotency, 
yet is it not inferred from this law that we have 
any power ; even so, we are admonished and 
taught, by those promises and threatenings, what 
follows after that sin and impotency of ours, 
which the law has pointed out to us ; but nothing 
of worthiness is ascribed by them to our merit. 

Wherefore, as law words stand in the place of 
instruction and illumination, to teach us what we 
ought to do i and, as the next step, what we can- 
not do : so words of reward, whilst they intimate 
what is to happen, stand in the place of exhort- 
ation and threatening, to stir up, comfort, and 
revive the godly, n that they may go on, persevere, 
and conquer, in doing good, and enduring evil, 
least they should be weary or broken-hearted. 
Just as Paul exhorts his Corinthian converts, 
saying, " Quit yourselves like men ;" " knowing 
that your labour is not in vain in the Lord." 

already' — c the triumph sure' — ' Christ magnified by my 
body' — ' God does all our works in us' — f we will do what 
he enables' — ' we will suffer what he appoints to us' — f happy 
by the way' — ' how much more happy when in my Father's 
house ! ' — There is nothing mercenary here j but the end is 
neither hidden, nor undesired. — See above, note \ 

n Excitantur, consolantur, erigwitur.~] Exc. is a more general 
term, applicable to any that want excitement ; but erig. applies 
especially to those who have fallen or been cast down, and so 
want raising up. How beautifully this process is described in 
Ezek. xxxiv. ! 

° Luther quotes these words, as if they were parts of the 



224 BONDAGE OF THE WILL 

part in. Thus God revives Abraham by saying, ? I am thy 
exceeding great reward/ Just as if you should 
cheer a person, by telling him that his works 
assuredly please God : a sort of consolation which 
the Scripture frequently uses. Nor is it a small 
degree of consolation for a man to know that he 
pleases God ; though nothing else should follow 
from it : which is, however, impossible. 
sect. All that is said about hope and expectation 
must be referred to this consideration, that the 



Reason things hoped for will certainly take place ; al- 
objects to though godly men do not hope, because of the 
this ac- things themselves, or seek such benefits for their 
is an-' own sake. So again, ungodly men are terrified 
swered and cast down by words of threatening, which 
thewiiuf announce a judgment to come, that they may 
God.' cease and abstain from evil; that they may not 
be puffed up ; that they may not grow secure and 
insolent in their sins. — Now, if reason should turn 
up her nose here and say, c Why would God have 
these impressions to be made by his words, when 
no effect is produced by such words, and when 
the will cannot turn itself either way? why doth 
he not perform what he cloth, without taking no- 
tice of it in the word (seeing he can do all 
things without the word ; and seeing the will 
neither has more power, nor performs more, of 
itself, through the hearing of the word, if the 
Spirit be lacking to move the soul within; nor 
would have less power, or perforin less, though 
the word were silent, if the Spirit were vouch- 
safed; since all depends upon the power and 
work of the Holy Ghost) ; my reply is, God has 
determined to give the Spirit by the word, and 
not without it, having us for his cooperators, to 
sound ivithout what he alone and by himself 
breathes within, just where he pleases; producing 
effects, which he could no doubt accomplish 

same sentence : but the one is part of 1 Cor. xv. 58. the other 
of 1 Cor. xvi. 13. . 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 225 

without the word, but which it is not his sect. 

XXXIX 

pleasure so to do. And who are we, that we m 

should demand the reason why God wills so ? It 
is enough for us to know that God wills so ; and 
it becomes us to reverence, to love, and to adore 
this will, putting a restraint upon rash Reason. 
Even Christ, in Matt. xi. assigns no other cause 
for the Gospel being hidden from the wise and 
revealed to babes, than that so it seemed good to 
the Father. p So he might nourish us without 
bread, and he has, in point of fact, given us a 
power of being nourished without bread, as he 
says in Matt. iv. " Man is not nourished by 
bread alone, but by the word of God." q Still, it 
hath pleased him to nourish us inwardly by his 
word, through the means of bread ; and that 
bread fetched into us from without/ 

It stands good, therefore, that merit is not 
proved by reward ; in the Scriptures, at least : 
and again, that Freewill is not proved by merit; 
much less such a Freewill as Diatribe has under- 
taken to prove ; one which cannot will any thing 
good, of itself. For, if you should even concede 
that there is such a thing as merit, and should 

p Here we are reminded again of the defect of Luther's 
views. It is not arbitrary will, but counselled will of God 
accomplishing the best end by just and necessary means, 
which gives occasion to this arrangement. The declaration 
of his truth, by the word, to the self-made-impotent is neces- 
sary to the manifestation of himself, through his dealings 
with them. The " Even so, Father," would be enough ; but 
he has been so kind as to show us more ; and there are 
places and seasons where this ( more' should be brought into 
sight. See Sect, xxviii. notes l v x . 

i The original text in Deuteronomy viii. says, KJWF'Ss, 

jt -r 

tf Every that proceedethj" meaning no doubt, as the Lord 
quotes it, ' every word of command which he gives.' 

r Thus it is God's word which imparts its power of nou- 
rishing to the natural bread ; but still he is pleased to use 
that bread : so, the spiritual bread of the word only nourishes 
when he gives the word for it to do so ; but still he uses that 
spiritual bread, when he wills to nourish. 

Q 



226 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. add those wonted similes and consequences of 

Reason ; as, that commandments are given in vain ; 

that reward is promised in vain; that threaten- 
ings are held forth in vain ; except there be 
Freewill : if any thing be proved by these argu- 
ments, I say, it is that Freewill can of herself do 
every thing. For, if she cannot do every thing for 
herself, that consequence of reason retains its 
place; 'therefore it is vain to command, it is 
vain to promise, it is vain to hold out threaten- 
ings/ Thus is Diatribe continually disputing* 
against herself, whilst opposing me. The truth 
meanwhile is, that God alone worketh both 
merit and reward in us, by his Spirit; but he 
announces and declares each of these to the 
whole world, by his outward word ; in order that 
his own power and glory, and our impotency 
and ignominy, may be proclaimed even amongst 
the ungodly, the unbelieving, and the ignorant ; 
although none but the godly understand that 
word with the heart, and keep it faithfully ; the 
rest despising it. 

sec. XL. And now, it would be too tiresome to repeat 

the several imperative verbs which Diatribe enu- 

fb?°not y iterates out of the New Testament; always ap- 
consider- pending her own consequences, pretending that 
ing ail his a n these expressions are vain, superfluous, un- 
texts^epa- meaning, absurd, ridiculous, nothing at all, ex- 
rateiy .— C ept the Will be free. I have already declared, to 
cavUfrom a high degree of nauseating repetition, what an 
Matt. absolute nothing is made out by such expressions 
vn ' ' as these; which, if they prove any thing, prove 

an entire Freewill. Now, this is nothing else but 
a complete overturning of Diatribe ; who under- 
took to prove such a Freewill as can do nothing 
good, and serves sin ; but does really prove one 
which can do every thing : so ignorant and so for- 
getful of her own self is she continually. They are 
mere cavils then, when she argues, ' ye shall know 
them by their fruits/ saith the Lord : by fruits, he 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 227 

means works. He calls these works ours: but sec.xli. 

they are not ours, if all things be performed by 

necessity. 

What! are not those possessions most rightly 
called ours, which we have not made ourselves, it 
is true, but have received from others ? Why 
should not those works then be called ours, which 
God hath given to us by the Spirit? Shall we 
not call Christ ours, because we have not made 
him, but only received him? On the other hand, 
if we make all those things which are called 
ours, why then we have made our own eyes for 
ourselves, we have made our own hands for 
ourselves, we have made our own feet for our- 
selves; unless we are forbidden to call our eyes, 
hands, and feet ours ! Nay, what have we, which 
we have not received ; as Paul says ? Shall we 
then say, that these possessions are either not 
ours, or they have been made by our ownselves ? 
But let be now, let be that these fruits are called 
ours, because we have produced them ; what 
then becomes of grace and the Spirit ? For he 
does not say, c by their fruits, which are in some 
very small degree and portion theirs, ye shall 
know them/ s — These, rather, are the ridiculous, 
the superfluous, the vain, the unmeaning sayings — 
nay, a parcel of foolish and odious cavils, by which 
the sacred words of God are polluted and profaned. 

Thus too, that saying of Christ upon the cross Lukexxiii. 
is sported with ; t u Father, forgive them ; for they 34 - . is 
know not what they do." (Here, when you would lot /or 
expect a sentence attaching 11 Freewill to the Freewill. 

s Erasmus argues, it is necessary to their being called 
f ours/ that they be clone by our own natural powers. Then they 
are wholly done by our natural powers j for he calls them ours, 
without addition or subtraction. — Then there is no Spirit and 
grace in our good works. — Another of the ( nimis probats.' 

1 Luditur.~) ' Ludo se, delectationis causa, exercere.' I do 
not know any classical authority for this passive form of the 
verb f ludo.'' — Verbum, &c. luditur. 

u Astrueret.~] ' Juxta struo/ f prope extruo :' not super- 
structure/ but ' additional or contiguous structure.' — It is the 

q2 ' 



228 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. testimony adduced, she betakes herself again to her 

consequences.) ' How much more justly, says 

she, would he have excused them by saying that 
they were those who had not a free will, and 
could not, if they would, do otherwise !' And yet, 
that sort of Freewill which can will nothing good, 
though it be the one in question, is not proved by 
this consequence ; but that sort of Freewill which 
can do every thing ; which no one contends for, 
and which all deny, except the Pelagians. — But 
now, when Christ expressly says that they know 
not what they do, does he not at the same time 
testify, that they cannot will good ? For, how can 
you will what you do not know ? There can be 
no desire, surely, for an unknown thing. What 
can be more stoutly affirmed against Freewill, 
than that it is in itself such a perfect nullity, as 
not only to be incapable of willing good, but even 
of knowing how much evil it is doing, and what 
good is. Is there any obscurity in any word 
here ? " They know not what they do." What 
is there remaining in Scripture, which may not, 
by the suggestion of Diatribe, prove Freewill, 
when this most clear and most adversative saying 
of Christ is to her an affirmation of it? A man 
might just as easily say, that Freewill is proved 
by that saying, " The earth was empty v and 
void;" or by that, " God rested on the seventh 
day :" and the like. Then will the Scriptures be 
ambiguous and obscure indeed ! nay, they will 
mean all things, and mean nothing, in the same 
moment. But such audacious handling of the 
word of God argues a mind signally contemptuous 
both towards God and towards man; which de- 
serves no patience at all. x 

flying off from the proof alleged, in pursuit of something more 
remote ; to which Luther here objects. 

v Inanis.'] We say, ' without form ;' but Luther has it 
f without substance •' having nothing in it, or upon it. 

x Luther answers, 1. It is inference. 2. The text is against 
you. 3. Such use of Scripture is criminal. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 229 

So again, that saying in John i. " To them sc.xlii. 

gave he power to become the sons of God/' she ; — 

takes in this wise : c How can power be given to \f^\ for 
them, that they should become the sons of God, grace. 
if there be no liberty in our will V 

This passage, also, is a cudgel y for Freewill — 
such as nearly all the Gospel of John is — but 
adduced in support of it. See, I pray you, John 
is not speaking of any work of man's, whether 
great or small ; but of the actual renewal and 
transmutation of the old man, who is a son of 
the devil, into the new man; who is a son of God. 
This man is simply passive (as they speak), and 
does nothing, but is altogether a thing made. For 
John speaks of his being made : " to be made the 
sons of God/' he says; by a power freely given to 
us of God, not by a power of Freewill which is 
natural to us. z 

But oar Diatribe infers from hence, that Free- 
will is of such power, as to make sons of God; 
prepared else to determine, that this saying of 
John is ridiculous and unmeaning. But who has 
ever extolled Freewill to such a height, as to 
give it the power of making sons of God ; espe- 
cially such a Freewill, as can will nothing good ; 
the one, which Diatribe has taken up to prove.* 
But let this pass with the rest of those conse- 
quences, so o.ten repeated; by which, if any thing 
is proved, it is nothing else, but what Diatribe 
denies ; namely, that Freewill can do every thing. 
What John means is this : that, by Christ's 
coming into the world, a power is given to all 
men, through the Gospel (that Gospel by which 
grace is offered, and not work demanded), which 

y Malleus.'] More properly., ' a mallet)' ' fab rile instrumen- 
tum ad tundendum.' 

z Viinsitd.~] Ins. properly, ' what is inserted as a graft { but 
transferred to signify ' what is natural, innate, inherent.' ' Na- 
tivus, innatus, ingenitus.' 

a Assumsit.~\ Scil. ad probandum. What he elsewhere ex- 
presses by c probandum suscepit.' 



230 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. is magnificent in the extreme ; even that of 

■ becoming the sons of God, if they be willing to 

believe ! But this being willing, this believing in 
his name, as it is a thing which Freewill never 
knew, never thought of before ; so is it a thing, 
which she is yet much further from being able to 
attain to, by her own powers. For how should 
reason imagine that faith in Jesus, the son of God 
and of man, is necessary ; when she does not 
even at this day comprehend, nor can believe, 
even though the whole creation should as with an 
audible voice proclaim it, that there exists a 
person, which is at the same time both God and 
man. On the contrary, she is the more offended 
by such preaching ; as Paul testifies in 1 Cor. i. 
so far is she, from being either willing or able to 
believe. b 

John, therefore, proclaims those riches of the 
kingdom of God which are offered to the world 
by the Gospel, not the virtues of Freewill : inti- 
mating at the same time, how few there are that 
receive them ; because Freewill, forsooth, resists 
the proposal, her power being nothing else, 
through the dominion which Satan has over her, 
but even to spurn the offer of grace, and of 

b We have here Luther's usual, exceptionable expression 
about e offers.' (See Sect. xxiiL note a ) ; and his mention of 
the person of Christ suggests over again the importance of the 
distinction which I remarked in Part ii. Sect. viii. note r . If we do 
not keep the divine and the human person of Christ distinct, but 
regard him simply as a person who has put another nature, the 
human nature, upon his former and eternal, divine nature ; his 
whole history and the things said of him are a Babel : not so, 
if we be brought to apprehend him as the co-equal of the 
Father and of the Holy Ghost acting in and by a human person 
which he has taken up into union with himself. — The text 
evidently proves nothing for Freewill : it only says " as many 
as received him;" without saying by what power ; whether 
natural or supernatural. I do not agree with Luther, in its 
being the making of the old man into the new man : it is the 
state of privilege and glory, into which the son of Adam and 
child of the devil has been brought, by that preceding process of 
transmutation. 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 231 

that Spirit which would fulfil the law. So ex- sc.xliii. 

quisite is the force of her desire and endeavour to 

fulfil the Jaw ! — But, hereafter, I shall shew more 
at large, what a thunderbolt this text of John's is 
against Freewill. Meanwhile, I am not a little 
indignant, that passages so clear in their mean- 
ing and so powerful in their opposition to Freewill, 
should be cited by Diatribe in her favour : whose 
dulness is such, that she discovers no difference 
between law w r ords and words of promise; for, 
having first of all established Freewill, most ri- 
diculously, by law r testimonies, she afterwards 
reaches the highest height of absurdity/ by con- 
firming it with words of promise. This absurdity, 
however, is easily explained, by considering with 
what an averse and contemptuous mind Diatribe 
engages in the discussion. To her it is no matter, 
whether grace stand or fall; whether Freewill be 
laid prostrate or maintain her seat; if she may but 
prove herself the humble servant of a conclave of 
tyrants, by uttering a number of vain w r ords to 
excite disgust against our cause. 

After this we come to Paul also, the most Objections 
determined enemy to Freewill, who is never- fl '°™^f 
theless compelled to establish Freewdll by what dSpSch- 7 
he says in Rom. ii. " Or despisest thou the ed - 
riches of his goodness and patience and long- 
suffering ? or knowest thou not that his goodness 
leadeth thee to repentance?" How can it be, 
that contempt of the commandment is imputed, 
where the will is not free ? How can it be, that 
God invites to repentance, when he is the author 
of impenitence ? How can it be, that damnation 

c See note * upon note f , Sect, xxxvi. 

d Ineptissime longe absurdissime.'] Inept. The weaker term ; 
denoting properly, ' unaptness/ impertinence/ ' silliness :' absurd. 
'the extreme of incongruity and extravagance.' e Ineptus est 
tantum non aptus ; absurdus, repugnans, abhorrens : itaque 
absurdus majus quiddam significatj' velut qui surdis auribus 
audiri dignus est. 



232 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. is just, when the judge constrains to the crime? 6 

I answer, let Diatribe look to these questions. 

What are they to me ? She has told us, in her 
approvable opinion, that Freewill cannot will 
good, and compels us necessarily into the service 
of sin. How is it then, that contempt of the com- 
mandment is imputed to her; if she cannot will 
good, and if she have no liberty, but be under a 
necessary bondage to sin? How is it, that God 
invites to repentance, when he is the author of 
man's not repenting ; in that he deserts, or does 
not confer grace upon him, when, being left alone, 
he cannot will good ? How is it, that the damna- 
tion is just, where the judge, by withdrawing his 
help, makes it unavoidable that the ungodly man 
be left to do wickedly ■; since, by his own power, 
he can do nothing else ? — All these sayings recoil 
upon the head of Diatribe : or, if they prove any 
thing, prove (what I have said) that Freewill can 
do every thing ; in contradiction to what she has 
said herself, and every body else. These conse- 
quences of reason annoy Diatribe, throughout all 
her Scripture quotations. It is ridiculous and 
unmeaning, forsooth, to attack and exact/ in such 
vehement language, when there is not one present 
who can fulfil the demand ? The Apostle, all the 
while, has it for his object to lead ungodly and 
proud men to the knowledge of themselves and of 
their own impotency, by the means of these threat- 
enings ; that, having humbled them by the know- 
ledge of sin, he may prepare them for grace. 5 

e Referring, no doubt, to Rom. iii. 5 — 8. 

f Invadere et exigere.~] Inv. expresses the assault upon the 
person: ' in aliquem locum vadoj' ingredior (et fere cum 
aliquayi, aut impetu), aggredior, irrumpo, irruo. Exig. c extra 
ago ;' educo. Saepe est reposcere, flagitare, in re pecuniaria : 
itemque, exigendo obtinere. — The figure is that of a bailiff 
seizing a man's person and demanding payment of a debt. 

s It is not necessary to suppose this ulterior design, neither 
will it extend to all the cases which the Apostle had in view - } 
though such effect is frequently produced by the instrumen- 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 233 

And why need I recount, one by one, all the sc.xliv. 
texts which are adduced from Paul's writings; ~ — ; — 
when she does but collect a number of imperative ^ lckllf T s 

, , f confession 

or conjunctive verbs, or such expressions as raul confessed. 
uses in exhorting Christians to the fruits of faith ? h 
Diatribe however, by adding her own conse- 
quences, imagines 1 to herself a Freewill of such 
aud so great virtue, that, without grace, it can 
do every thing which Paul the exhorter pre- 
scribes ? Christians, however, are not led by 
Freewill, but by the Spirit of God. (Rom. viii. 14.) 
Now, to be led is not to lead ourselves, but to be 
driven along, just as the saw or the hatchet k is 
driven along by the carpenter. And here, least 
any one should doubt Luther's having said such 
absurd things, Diatribe recites his words : which I 
deliberately own; avowing, as I do, 1 that WicklifPs 

tality of these Scriptures. Such appeals are amongst the strong 
manifesters of what is in man • in him as what he has made 
himself, not as what God made him ; in him,, therefore, without 
excuse. By such manifesters, God, as his pleasure is, both 
hardeneth and converteth. In chap. ii. it is an exposure of the 
heart of the Jew as boasting himself against the heathen ; in 
chap hi. it is the infidel disporting himself against the truth : 
whose damnation is shewn to be just by the language which he 
uses ; the language of a heart, which has made itself vile. 

h See Sect, xxxvi. note f Gospel precepts, whether from the 
Lord's mouth, or Paul's pen, are words to the Lord's called 
only ; shewing how the saved should walk : that we, having been 
delivered out of the hands of our enemies, might serve him 
without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, aU the 
days of our life. (Luke i. 74, 75.) 

1 Concipit.'] c Translate ponitur pro efformare, compre- 
hendere, intelligere ;' e forms an idea.' 

k I cannot think Luther very happy in this illustration : the 
hatchet and the saw have no choice in the hand of the carpenter j 
but we are led freely, delightingly . 

1 Quce sane agnosco. Fateor enim.] Qu. sa. ag. expresses 
the perfect self-possession and consciousness with which he 
acknowledges the words as his. Sane. ' Sana mente aut 
sensu, ubi nihil fuci aut fraudis est.' But it is not honesty and 
simplicity, so much as calmness, sobriety and stedfastness of 
judgment, that he claims for himself, in the recognition and 
restatement of what he had advanced. Fateor enim implies 
avowal made under circumstances which might tempt to the 



234 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part in. article (< all things are done by necessity ,' that 

is, by the unchangeable will of God ; * and oar 

will, though not compelled indeed to do evil, is 
incapable of doing any good by its own power' 1 ") 

suppression of it. His adversaries were the persons to make 
confession of the evil at Constance, not he: on his part, it was 
proclamation of accordant, not antagonistic, sentiment j but 
still, it was testimony borne in adversity — borne, as with a 
halter round his neck. 

K Mors sola, fat etur 
" Quantula sint hominum corpuscula." — Juv. x. 171, 2. 

Death testifies j but it is, as an unwilling and compelled witness : 
she would rather boast of her prey, than proclaim its littleness. 
m This splendid paradox of WicklifFs has been brought into 
discussion already (see Part ii Sect, xxii.), and is the very essence 
of divine truth, though so offensive to the enemies of truth, and 
of many who account themselves its advocates. WicklifF, with 
all his blemishes, was a truly great man j enlightened to see 
and teach much of the mystery of God • more, I am ready to 
say, than many that came after him and carried off his palm. 
Most of these acknowledged his worth indeed : for more than 
a century, those who had light did not disdain to acknowledge 
that they walked in his light; such as the Lollards, Huss, 
Jerome, and others. Erasmus gives him to Luther; and 
Luther is not ashamed to receive and confess him. Certainly, 
my friend the Dean has not done him justice ; yet he tried, 
I admit, and meant to do it him. But this necessity, was what 
the Dean did not thoroughly relish, though he tolerated it : 
and so he apologized, where WicklifF himself would have 
gloried ; and when he professes to give a brief sketch of ' his 
doctrines as extracted from his writings and other authentic 
documents,' whilst he admits that c his distinguishing tenet was, 
undoubtedly, the election of grace,' he does not tell us what he 
held about it, nor even mention this paradox, which seems to 
have been considered as the centre and heart's core of his 
creed. — The Dean appears to have attached too much import^ 
ance to Melancthon's judgment, who was so warped by the Sacra- 
mentarian Controversy, in which WicklifFs name was drawn out 
against the Lutherans, that he went to a great extreme in deny- 
ing WicklifFs light; declaring t that he had found in him, also, 
many other errors' (beside this on the sacrament), ' and that 
he neither understood nor believed the righteousness of faith.' — 
I admit that he had much darkness mingled with his light • 
confusion with his clearness ; pusillanimity with his boldness ; 
sophistry with his plainness ; rashness with his honest zeal for 
reform. But I am rather inclined to measure a man by what 
he has of good, than by what he has also of evil ; and when I 
see WickHff acknowledged as the first open champion and 



TEXTS FOR FREEWILL DISPROVED. 235 

was falsely condemned by the Council of Con- sc.xliv. 

stance ; n or rather by conspiracy and sedition. — m 

Nay, even Diatribe herself defends him, in con- 
junction with me; asserting, as she does, that 
Freewill can will nothing good by its own powers, 
and serves sin necessarily ; though, in the course 
of her proof, she establishes the direct contrary. 

declarer against the abominations of Antichrist ; when I read 
such profound and luminous testimonies to the ' ' hidden wis- 
dom " in his writings j when I hear martyrs calling him their 
apostle, and a Cobham ' solemnly professing before God and man 
that he never abstained from sin till he knew Wickliff — but that 
after he became acquainted with that virtuous man and his de- 
spised doctrines it had been otherwise with him j' when I recollect, 
that he was the first who gave the Bible to our nation in English, 
and vindicated the right of the common people to read it ; 
when I find the more determined of the reformers of the six- 
teenth century owning him as their forerunner, and their 
revilers casting him in their teeth : I am ashamed to ask what 
doctrine he held about tithes -, to doubt his sincerity, because 
his circumstances drew him into an undesirable degree of mix- 
ture with carnal statesmen ; to weigh the words which he 
dropped, in the hour of the power of darkness, in a pair of 
scales ; and to ( rejoice in finding evidence,' as the result of 
much pious search, ' that this celebrated champion did belong 
to the church of Christ.' Huss in the flames, and the Swift 
receiving his unintombed ashes, shall be my witnesses that he 
spake by the Holy Ghost. 

n We have heard of the Council of Constance already (see 
Part ii. Sect. viii. note v ); it was numerous, turbulent, and long : 
it put down three Popes, and erected one 5 raved about reform, 
and confirmed sword-preaching;* condemned a dead saint, and 
burnt two living ones ; denied necessity, made a Sigismund 
blush, and did one good thing amidst all these bad ones, by 
setting Councils above Popes. 

* Outrages of the Teutonic knights in Poland and Prussia ; where they 
obtained a professed subjection to the Gospel by fire and sword ! 



236 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

PART IV. 

PART IV. 

LUTHER DEFENDS CERTAIN TESTIMONIES 
AGAINST FREEWILL. 



SECTION I. 

Erasmus has but two Texts to kill. 

Let what has been said suffice in answer to 
Diatribe's first part, in which she endeavours to 
establish the reality of Freewill ; and let us now 
consider her second part, in which she seeks to 
confute the testimonies on our side of the ques- 
tion : those, I mean, by which its existence is 
negatived. You will see here what a man-raised 
smoke is, when opposed to God's thunders and 
lightnings ! 

First then, after having recited innumerable 
texts of Scripture in support of Freewill, as a 
sort of army too dreadful to encounter (that she 
may give courage to the confessors and martyrs, 
and all the holy men and women who staud up 
for Freewill ; and may inspire fear and trembling 
into all who are guilty of the sin of denying it) ; 
she pretends that the host which comes to oppose 
Freewill is contemptible in point of numbers, and 
goes on to represent that there are but two pas- 
sages which stand conspicuous above the rest on 
this side of the argument : having nothing in her 
mind, as it should seem, but slaughter, and making 
sure of accomplishing it without much trouble. 
One of these is from Exod. ix. cc The Lord har- 
dened Pharaoh's heart:" the other is from Ma- 
lachi i. « Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 237 

hated." Strange, what an odious and unprofitable sect. ii. 

discussion Paul did take up, in the judgment of 

Diatribe, when he expounded both these at large 
to the Romans ! In short, if the Holy Ghost 
were not a little knowing in rhetoric, there would 
be danger lest his heart should melt within him, 
through this great reach of art in pretending such 
vast contempt ; and, lest absolutely despairing of 
his cause, he should yield the palm to Freewill, 
before the trumpet has called the champions into 
the lists. Presently, however, I shall come up 
as the reserve a to these two Scriptures, and shew 
my forces also : and yet, where such is the fortune 
of the battle, that one man puts ten thousand to 
flight, what need is there of forces ? If one text 
of Scripture shall have conquered Freewill, her 
innumerable forces will be of no use to her. 

Here therefore Diatribe has discovered a new Kills by- 
method of eluding the plainest texts, by choosing iesolv jng 
to understand a trope in the simplest and clearest tropes? 
forms of speech. As, in the former instance, when which he 
pleading for Freewill, she eluded b the force of all ttthek* 7 
the imperative and conjunctive law words by example. 
adding inferences, and superadding similies of her 
own invention; c so now, on her setting out to plead 

a Succenturiatus.'] e Succenturiati dicuntur, qui explendae cen- 
turiae gratia subjiciunt se ad supplementum ordinum.' — Luther 
would consider himself as ' the leader of an army of reserve ;' 
though such army would be unnecessary, since the two inva- 
lidated texts would keep their ground. — Pugnae for tuna. Luther 
speaks here, '"more Ethnicorumj' who, it is well known, 
ascribed every thing to Fortune, erecting temples and altars to 
her, and accounting ' Fortunatus ' (' favoured of fortune ') the 
most illustrious title they could ascribe to their generals. But 
Luther well knew the God of battles ; nor meant to ascribe 
their issue to any other than Him ; " even the Lord strong 
and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle !" 

b Elusit.~\ It was evading the natural and legitimate inter- 
pretation of those words, when she practised with them so as to 
pass them off for assertives. 

c Adjectas. affictas] Adj. ' addere/ ( adjungere :' affict. ( ssepius 
est fingendo adder e! 



238 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. against us, she turns and twists all words of 

divine promise and affirmation just which way she 

pleases, by discovering a trope in them : that 
Proteus may be alike inapprehensible on both 
sides. d Nay, she demands this for herself with 
great superciliousness at our hands ; because we> 
as she pretends, are wont also ourselves to make 
our escape from the pursuer, when hard pressed, 6 
by discovering tropes. In that passage, for in- 
stance, ' Stretch out thine hand to whichsoever 
thou wilt ;' that is, 6 grace shall stretch out thy 
hand to whichsoever she wills/ ' Make you a 
new heart ;* that is, - grace shall make you a new 
heart:' and the like/ It seems a great shame 
then, if Luther may have leave to introduce so 
violent and forced an interpretation ; but we may 
not so much as be allowed to follow the interpreta- 
tions of the most approved doctors. You see 
then, that our dispute here is not about the text, 
as it is in itself; 6 nor, as in former instances, 
about inferences and similies; but about tropes 

d Utrobique.'] In both parts of the discussion : the former, 
where Freewill is maintained ; the latter, where its opponents 
are repelled. Incomprehensibilis. ' Uncatchable j' if there were 
such a word ! 

e Ubi urgemur, elabi.'] Elab. The primary idea is that of 
the snake slipping out of the hand, or water gliding secretly 
from its source 3 which is tranferred to e silent escape from a 
pursuing enemy.' Urgr. is the state of one driven along by the 
goad or spear, when he can advance no further. (See Part i. 
Sect. ix. note d .) ' In this state, says Erasmus, they cry out 
" trope," " trope 5" as a sort of new discovery which they have 
made.' 

f Extende manum. Facite vobis.~] See above, Part iii. Sect. vi. — t 
Ezek. xviii. 31. 

s Non de textu ipso."] Since it is not interpretation, must 
refer to genuineness. It is not, as the question was about 
Eccle us . xv. where the authority of the book quoted is doubtful \ 
or other texts which might be named, where the soundness of 
some particular verse or word might be disputed, though the 
book were authorized ; but whether the acknowledged text is 
to be understood tropically, and whether certain proposed 
interpretations be admissible. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 239 

and interpretations. c when shall it be, as sec. hi. 
some will say, that we get a plain and pure — — 
text, 11 without inferences and tropes, for and 
against Freewill ? Has Scripture no such texts ? 
And shall the cause of Freewill be for ever an 
undecided one ? one, not settled by any sure 
text, but driven like a reed by the winds: be- 
cause nothing" is brought forwards in debating it, 
save a number of tropes and inferences, the produc- 
tion of men quarrelling mutually with each other V 

Let us rather judge, that neither inference, nor Trope and 
trope, ought to be admitted into any passage of c °™*~ e 
Scripture, unless an evident context, 1 and some when only 
absurdity, which offendeth against one of the t0 .J ) t e ? d '' 
articles of our faith, in the plain meaning, k con- 
strain us to such interpretation and inference : on 
the contrary, that we ought every where to stick 
close to that simple, pure and natural sense of 
words, which both the art of grammar, and the 
common use of speech as God created it in man, 
direct us to. 1 For, if any man may, at his plea- 
sure, invent inferences and tropes for Scripture ; 
what will all Scripture be, but a reed shaken by 
the winds, or a sort of Vertumnus ? Then it will 
indeed be true, that nothing certain can be 
affirmed or proved, as N touching any article of 
faith; since you may quibble it away by some pre- 
tended trope. m Rather, let every trope be avoided, 

h Simpliceyi, purumque.'] Simp. ' Free from figure.' c Pur. 
' Free from human additions.' 

i Circumstantia verborum evident. 

k Absurdltas rei manifesto;. 

1 Quam grammatica. . . . liabetJ] Luther had no doubt whence 
the use of speech was derived to man (pepo-Tres uvOpumoC) ■ how- 
ever some heathen, and demi-heathen, philosophers may have 
made it matter of speculation : even from him, who prompted 
its exercise when he brought the animals unto Adam to see 
what he would call them (Gen. ii. 19, 20) ; and who afterwards 
came down to confound that one language which he had given. 
(Gen. xi. 5 — 9.) 

m Quod non queas aliquo tropo cavillari.'] You have but to 
insinuate, that the texts brought to prove it are figurative, and 
do not mean what they seem. 



240 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. as the most destructive poison, which Scripture 

herself does not compel us to receive. 

See what has befallen that great trope-master 
Origen/ in expounding the Scriptures ! What just 
occasion does he afford to the calumniating Por- 
phyry ! ° insomuch, that even Jerome p thinks it of 



n Origen of Alexandria, the great father of mystical and 
allegorical interpretation, suffered martyrdom in the 69th year 
of his age, a. d. 254. — There was much, no doubt, to condemn 
in him, but something also to commend. Whilst strangely 
defective in his perceptions of divine truth, he was learned, 
upright, disinterested, and laborious : a man of conscience and 
of magnanimity. Philosophy and literature were his bane. He 
did much mischief to the church by his style of interpreting 
Scripture, not only in rendering human fancies for a season 
fashionable, to the exclusion of plain truth ; but, as a remote 
consequence, by bringing even the sober use of types and 
figures — that pregnant source of lively and particularizing 
instruction — into the contempt with which it has now for some 
ages been loaded. — Two sentences of his are worthy to be pre- 
served. On the words, ' f We conclude that a man is justified 
by faith" (Rom. iii.) he says, e The justification of faith only, 
is sufficient ; so that, if any person only believe, he may be 
justified, though no good work hath been fulfilled by him.' On 
the case of the penitent thief, he writes, ' He was justified by 
faith, without the works of the law j because, concerning 
these, the Lord did not inquire what he had done before j 
neither did he stay to ask what work he was purposing to per- 
form after he had believed; — but, the man being justified by his 
confession only, Jesus who was going to Paradise, took him as 
a companion and carried him there.' — His Hexapla furnished 
the first specimen of a Polyglot. 

° Porphyry, a Platonic philosopher, who lived in the same 
century with Origen, made great use of his fanciful interpreta- 
tions, in reviling Christianity. From the serious pains taken by 
the ancient Christians to confute him, it may be presumed that 
his works (which are now chiefly lost) were subtle and inge- 
nious ; but his testimony, like that of most other infidels, has 
been made to redound to the establishment, instead of the 
subversion, of the Gospel. (See Chap. xxi. Cent. iii. of Milner's 
Ecc. Hist, where a remarkable assemblage of testimonies to 
this conclusion is skilfully adduced : and see, especially, vol. ii. 
of Fry's Second Advent, where Gibbon is made the same sort 
of unintentional witness.) — Porphyry censures Origen for 
c leaving Gentilism, and embracing the barbarian temerity :' 
whereas Origen was, in fact, brought up under christian 
parents, and a man of christian habits from his youth. He 
compliments Origen upon his skill in philosophy, but ridicules 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 241 

little avail to defend Origen. What has come to sec. hi. 

the Avians, through that trope of theirs, by which 

they make Christ a mere nuncupative God? q 
What has come to these new prophets in our day, 
who, in expounding Christ's words, ( This is my 
body/ find a trope, one of them in the pronoun 
'this;' another in the verb 'is;' a third in the 
noun 'body?' 1 It is the result of my observa- 

his introduction of it into the Scriptures ; which, as this enemy 
justly teaches, abhor such an associate. 

p Jerome, the renowned monk of Stridon, in Pannonia, 
had a good deal of the spirit of Origen. Luther says, 
even Jerome : a man of prodigious learning, lively eloquence, 
and vigorous mind, but of small discernment in the truth} 
one taught of man, more than of God. He was born under 
Constantine, a. d. 331, the contemporary of Augustine, and his 
opponent ; ever, and all his days, a controversialist : peevish 
and vain; self-righteous and superstitious; but sincere and 
devout. — To him the Romish church owes her Vulgate. ' In 
his very voluminous expositions, he speaks at random : is alle- 
gorical beyond all bounds, and almost always without accuracy 
and precision ; lowers the doctrine of illumination in 1 Cor. ii. 
to things moral and practical; hints at something like a first 
and second justification before God ; asserts predestination, and 
as it were retracts it; owns a good will as from God in one 
place, in another supposes a power to choose to be the whole of 
divine grace ; never opposes fundamental truths deliberately, 
but though he owns them every where, always does so defec- 
tively, and often inconsistently. It must be confessed, the 
reputation of this Father's knowledge and abilities has been 
much overrated. There is a splendour in a profusion of ill- 
digested learning, coloured by a lively imagination, which is 
often mistaken for sublimity of genius. This was Jerome's 
case ; but this was not the greatest part of the evil. His 
learned ignorance availed, more than any other cause, tojrjve a 
celebrity to superstition in the christian world, and to darken 
the light of the Gospel. Yet, when he was unruffled by con- 
tradiction, and engaged in meditations unconnected with super- 
stition, he could speak with christian affection concerning the 
characters and offices of the Son of God.' (See Miln. Eccl. 
Hist, volii. p. 481. 

' Deum nuncupativam."] A sort of titular God ; one called 
so, but not really so. — See above, Part ii. Sect. viii. note r . 

r Luther, as we all know, is not very sound here. His con- 
substantiation of the sacramental elements avoids a trope ; but 
the trope here falls in with his admitted exception, ' Scripture 
herself compels us to receive it.' The same portion of matter 
cannot be extended in two places at the same moment. The 

R 



Make 
you 



242 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. tion, that, of all the heresies and errors which 

have arisen from false expositions of Scripture, 

none have proceeded from understanding words 
in that simple sense in which they are bandied 
amongst men almost all the world over ; but from 
neglecting their simple use, and affecting tropes or 
inferences which are the laboured offspring of 
their own brain. 

SECT. IV. For example ; I do not remember, that I have 

ever applied such a violent sort of interpretation 

Luther de- to the words c Stretch out thine hand to which- 
Ssed h trope soever thou wilt/ as to say, ' Grace shall stretch 
in his in- out thine hand to whichsoever she wills/ — 
S r of a " * Make you a new heart / that is, ' Grace shall 
"Stretch make you a new heart/ and the like: although 
out" and Diatribe traduces me, in a published treatise, as 

having spoken thus. In fact, she is so distracted 
and beguiled 3 by her tropes and inferences, that 
she does not know what she says about any body. 
What I have really said is, 'when the words 
" stretch forth thy hand, 8cc. &c." are taken 
simply according to their real import, exclusive of 



bread therefore, which the Lord held in his hand whilst insti- 
tuting the ordinance, could not at the same instant be bread 
and hand ; or bread and body. The same is true of the cup : 
it must have been a distinct substance from the hand which 
held it 5 and therefore could not be really the Lord's blood j 
which could indeed only be drunk as poured out, and at the 
instant when He spake, was yet in his veins, — Add to this, the 
simple but decisive illustration which was suggested to 
Zuingle's mind in a dream, and which was so greatly blessed in 
the use he was afterwards led to make of it. * You stupid man, 
why do not you answer him from the twelfth of Exodus, as it is 
there written, <e It is the Lord's passover." ' — Luther calls the 
Sacramentists promiscuously e the new prophets :' not very 
ingenuously ; for even Carolstadt disclaimed all connection with 
the Celestial Prophets, as they were called — whilst Zuingle and 
CEcolampadius, in whom the sinews of the contest were, afforded 
no pretence for such imputation. — Milh. Eccles. Hist. vol. iv. 
chaps, vi. ix. pp. 772—810, 990, &c. 1127. 8. 

s Distenta et illu$a.~\ Dist. c Distractus, duplici cura occu- 
patus j cui duo simul res, diversis partibus, euram injiciunt.' 
Rectius a ' distineo,' quam ( distendo/ ducitur. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 243 

tropes and inferences, they express no more than sect.iv. 

a demand that we stretch out our hand : by which ** 

demand, is intimated to us what we ought to do ; 
according to the nature of the imperative verb, as 
explained by grammarians, and applied in common 
speech/ 

Diatribe, however, neglecting this simple use of 
the verb and dragging in her tropes and infer- 
ences by force, interprets thus : u Stretch out 
thine hand;" that is, 'thou canst stretch out thine 
hand by thine own power / u Make you a new 
heart;" that is, c ye can make you a new heart/ 
" Believe in Christ;" that is, 6 ye can believe/ 
Thus, it is in her account the same thing whether 
words be spoken imperatively, or indicatively ; if 
not, she is prepared to represent Scripture as 
ridiculous and vain. Yet these interpretations, 
which no scholar 1 can bear, may not be called 
violent and far-fetched, u when used by theologians ; 
but are to be welcomed, as those of the most 
approved doctors who have been received for 
ages ! v 

But it is very easy for Diatribe to allow of 
tropes and to adopt them in this text : it is no 
matter to her, whether, what is said be certain or 
uncertain. Nay, her very object is to make every 
thing uncertain ; counselling as she does, that all 

1 Nulli grammatico fcrendas.~\ Gram. c ad grammaticam per- 
tinens :' but this term, it seems, was especially applied to those 
who interpreted classical Avriters ; such as Donatus, Festus, 
Nonnius, Asconius and others ; not to teachers of grammar : 
differing from grammatista, which is sometimes used invi- 
diously. 

u Jffectatas~] So, in the last section, c affectatis proprio 
cerebro tropis :' e nimio, aut pravo, offectu et studio cupitus, 
qusesitus.' ( De re majore studio et cura conquisita et elabo- 
rata.' Our English term e affected,' opposed to ( natural,' 
implies the same thing : what is factitious, and the result of 
effort. It is not ' the design, wherewith,' that is marked in 
these two passages, but ( the labour and search employed.' 

v Has. . . . probatissimorum sunt doctorum.~] The sentence is 
not grammatical. 

r2 



244 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. dogmas on Freewill should be left to themselves, 

rather than investigated. It would have been 

enough for her, therefore, to get rid of sayings by 
which she feels herself to be hard pressed, in any 
way she can. x But I — who am in earnest and not 
in sport, and who am in search of most indubi- 
table truth, for the establishing of the consciences 
of men — must act very differently. For me, I say, 
it is not enough that you tell me, there may be a 
trope here. The question is, whether there ought 
to be, and must be a trope here. If you have not 
shewn me, that there must necessarily be a trope 
here ; you have done nothing. Here stands the 
word of God, " I will harden Pharaoh's heart ." 
If you tell me, it must be understood, or may be 
understood, ' I will permit it to be hardened ;' I 
hear what you say, that it may be so understood. I 
hear that this trope is commonly used in popular 
discourse; just as, c l have ruined you; because 
I did not instantly correct you, when you were 
going astray/ But this is not the place for such 
sort of proof. It is not the question, whether such 
a trope be in use. It is not the question, whether 
a person might use it in this passage of Paul's 
writings. The question is, whether it would be 
safe for him to use it, and certain that he used it 
rightly, in this place ; and whether Paul meant to 
use it. We are not inquiring about another 
man's — the reader's use of it — but about Paul's, 
the author's own use of it. 

What would you do with a conscience which 
should question you in this way? ' Lo, God the 
author of the book says, " I will harden Pharaoh's 
heart." The ^meaning of the word ' harden ' is 
obvious and notorious. But a human reader tells 
me, ' to harden, in this place, is to give occasion 
of hardening, inasmuch as the sinner is not 

x Utcunque avwUri dicta.] Amol. dicr. prop, de iis qui 
magno conatu et molimine dimoventur. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 245 

instantly corrected/ With what authority, with sect. v. 

what design, with what necessity, is that natural 

meaning of the word so tortuved for me ? What 
if my interpreting reader be mistaken? Where 
is it proved, that this torturing of the word ought 
to take place here? It is dangerous, it is even 
impious, to torture the word of God without 
necessity, and without authority. Will you next 
tutor this labouring little soul/ c Origen thought 
so?' Or thus; ( cease to pry into such matters, 
seeing they are curious and vain/ She will reply, 
\ Moses and Paul ought to have had this admoni- 
tion given to them, before they wrote ; or rather, 
God himself. To what end do they distract us 
with curious and vain sayings?' 

This wretched evasion of tropes, then, is of no Diatribe 
service to Diatribe; but we must keep strong nm ** b 
hold of our Proteus here, till he make us perfectly scripture 
sure that there is a trope in this identical passage, or miracle, 
either by the clearest Scripture proofs, or by v ll y pa e s _ 
evddent miracles. We do not give the least be- sage in 
lief to her mere thinking so, though it be backed J^J" 
by the toil and sweat of all ages. 2 But I go fur- 
ther, and insist that there can be no trope here, 
but that this saying of God must be understood 
in its simplicity, according to the literal meaning 
of the words. For it is not left to our own will 
to make, and re-make, words for God as we please : 
else what would be left in all Scripture, which 

y AnimulcE.'] We are reminded of the Emperor Adrian's 
' Animula vagula blandula.' Anim. vel contemptus, vel blanditiae 
causa. Here, it implies ' tenderness :' a weakling soul, ten- 
derly felt for, by the Lord and by bis messengers. 

z Indus trid consentiente.~] Indust. f Vis ingenii qua quippium 
excogitamus, ct adipiscimur. Itaque supra naturam et ingenium 
addit studium, et artem, et laborem.' He refers to the ' affec- 
tatis tropis ' and ' affectatas interpretationes,' which he repre- 
hended in the last section. There was much of scholastic art 
and cloistered industry in them ; but he must have light from 
heaven — the Holy Ghost's testimony either in the word, or in 
some palpable, new- wrought miracle — before he would be satis- 
fied that there is a trope in these words. 



246 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. does not just come back to Anaxagoras's phiio- 

sophy, a * Make what you please of any thing/ 

Suppose I should say, " God created the heavens 
and the earth ?' that is, * he set them in order ; but 
he did not make them out of nothing.' Or, ' He 
created the heavens and the earth ;' that is, the 
angels and the devils, or the righteous and the 
wicked. Upon this principle, a man has but to 
open the book of God, and by and by he is a 
theologian. b Let it be a settled and fixed prin- 
ciple then, that, when Diatribe cannot prove that 
there is a trope in these passages of ours which 
she is refuting, she be obliged to concede to 
us, that the words must be understood according 
to their literal import; even though she should 
prove that the same trope is of most frequent use 
elsewhere, both in all parts of Scripture and in 
common discourse. If this principle be admitted, 
all our testimonies which Diatribe meant to con- 
fute, have been defended at once ; and her con- 
futation is found to have effected absolutely no- 
thing, to have no power, to be a mere nothing. 

When she interprets that saying of Moses, 
therefore, u I will harden Pharaoh's heart," to 
mean f My lenity in bearing with a sinner, leads 
others, it is true, to repentance, but it shall render 
Pharaoh more obstinate in his wickedness ;' this 
is a pretty saying, but there is no proof that she 

a Anaxagoras, a philosopher of Clazomenae, the preceptor of 
Socrates, amongst many other paradoxes, is said to have insisted 
that ' snow was black, because made of water.' 

b Quis non. . . . Theologus.] If a man's own whimsies, without 
search or proof, are to be protruded as doctrines and interpreta- 
tions of Scripture ; we have but to open the book and consult our 
fancy, and straightway we may dub ourselves divines. 

c Quos diluit.~\ Dil. properly ( lavando aufero,' as the water 
washes the sides of the canal, or the heavy rain washes away the 
labours of the husbandman : hence transferred to the removal 
of filth from any substance j and particularly, in a forensic 
sense, to the purging of a charge. ' Diluere crimen est purgare, 
refellere, criminibus respondendo et accusationes refutando.' 
' Si nollem ita diluere crimen, ut dilui.' — Cic. pro MHon. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 247 

ought to speak so ; and we, not content with a sect. v. 
mere * ipse dixit/ demand proof. 

So she interprets that saying of Paul's plau- 
sibly ; " He hath mercy on whom he will have 
mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth /'.that is, 
c God hardeneth, when he doth not instantly chas- 
tise the sinner ; he hath mercy, when he presently 
invite th to repentance, by afflictions/ But what 
proof is there of this interpretation? 

So that of Isaiah, " Thou hast made us to err 
from thy ways, thou hast hardened our heart from 
thy fear." d What if Jerome, following Origen, 
interpret thus; ' The man is said to seduce who 
does not straightway call back from error/ Who 
shall assure us that Jerome and Origen interpret 
this passage rightly? And what if they do? It 
is our compact, that we will contest the matter 
not on the ground of any human teacher's autho- 
rity, but on that of Scripture only. Who are 
these Origens and Jeromes then, which Diatribe, 
forgetting her solemn covenant, throws in my 
teeth ? when as, of the ecclesiastical writers, there 
be none almost, who have handled the Scriptures 
more foolishly and more absurdly, than Origen 
and Jerome. 

In a word, such a licentiousness of interpreta- 
tion comes to this ; by a new and unheard of sort 
of grammar all distinctions are confounded: so that, 
when God says, " I will harden Pharaoh's heart/' 
you change persons and understand him to say, 
6 Pharaoh hardens himself through my lenity.' 
c God hardens our heart/ that is, we harden our 
own hearts, through God's deferring to punish 
us. u Thou, O Lord, hast made us to err/' that 
is, we have made ourselves to err, through thy 
not chastising us. So, * God's having mercy,' 
no longer signifies ' his giving grace,' or € exer- 

d Isaiah lxiii. 17. Our authorized version reads it as a ques- 
tion, " O Lord, why hast thou made us to err, &c." 



248 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part IV. cising compassion/ 'forgiving sin/ 'justifying/ 
or 'delivering from evil/ but, on the contrary, 
' his inflicting evil and punishing/ 

You will at last make it out by these tropes, 
that God had pity on the children of Israel, when 
he carried them away into Assyria and to Ba- 
bylon : for there it was that he chastised his 
offenders, there it was that he invited them to re- 
pentance by afflictions. On the other hand, when 
he brought them back and gave them deliverance, 
he did not pity but harden them ; that is, by his 
lenity and pity, he gave occasion to their being 
hardened. Thus, the sending of Christ the Sa- 
viour into the world, shall not be called an act of 
mercy in God, but an act of hardening; since by 
this mercy he hath given men occasion to harden 
themselves. On the other hand, in having laid 
Jerusalem waste, and destroyed the Jews unto 
this very day, he shows mercy towards them ; 
inasmuch as he chastises them for their sin, and 
invites them to repentance. In carrying his saints 
to heaven at the day of judgment, he will not 
perform an act of mercy but of induration : inas- 
much as he will give them an opportunity of 
abusing his goodness. In thrusting the wicked 
into hell; herein, he will shew mercy, because it 
will be chastising the sinner. Who ever heard, 
pray, of such compassions and such wraths of God 
as these ? 

What, if good men are made better by the for- 

c PerdiditJ] c AttoWvw, airofiaXhw, destruo, everto, deperdo. 
Si vocem spectes, est a per et do ; si notionem, a 7rep6(v, vasto, 
esse videtur.' There is a miraculous peculiarity in Israel's case, 
as a nation : perishing", he does not perish ; destroyed, he still is 
preserved. 1 had therefore hesitated to render perd. according to 
its natural and proper meaning ; and was disposed to adopt ' give 
up,' ' abandon,' ' cast off,' or ' scatter { which would not, it 
seems, have been incongruous with its essential meaning. But 
why should Luther have used this term in preference to the 
others ; and has not their dispersion been in fact their destruc- 
tion, as a state } city, and nation ? 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 249 

bearance, as well as by the severity of God; still, sect. v. 
when we speak of good and bad men promis- * 

cuously, these tropes will make the mercy of God 
wrath, and his wrath mercy, by a most perverse 
use of speech : since they call it wrath, when God 
is conferring benefits ; and pity, when he is in- 
flicting judgments. Now, if God shall be said 
to harden, when he is conferring benefits and 
bearing with evil ; f and shall be said to have 
mercy, when he is afflicting and chastising; why 
is he said to have hardened Pharaoh rather than 
the children of Israel, or even the whole world? 
Did he not confer benefits upon the children of 
Israel ? does he not confer benefits upon the 
whole world ? does he not bear with the wicked? 
does he not send his rain upon the evil and upon 
the good? — Why is he said to have had com- 
passion on the children of Israel, rather than upon 
Pharaoh ? Did he not afflict the children of 
Israel, in Egypt and in the desert? 5 I grant that 
some abuse, and others rightly use, God's wrath 
and goodness. But you define hardening to be 
' God's indulging the wicked with forbearance 
and kindness ;' ' God's having compassion to be' 
that he does not indulge, but visits and cuts 
short. So far as God is concerned therefore, he 
does but harden by perpetual kindness ; he does 
but shew mercy by perpetual severity. 11 

f BenefacU. toleraf] Benef. <( heapeth his benefits ; " tol. 
et endureth with much long-suffering." 

s If God hardens by conferring benefits, why is he said to 
have hardened Pharaoh rather than the children of Israel ? If 
God shews mercy by afflicting, why is he said to have had 
mercy on Israel in afflicting him, and not on Pharaoh ? 

h Luther admits that there is a different effect produced in 
different characters 5 ' the good profit by both good and evil ; ' 
* some use, and others abuse, both kindness and wrath.' But 
the question here is, what character shall we assign to God's 
dispensations of judgment and of mercy as falling generally 
upon men 5 upon good and evil intermixed : cum simul de bonis 
et malis loquimur ? The result will be, God's mercy is anger • 
and his anger, mercy. — The truth is, God does harden by 



250 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. But this is the best of all, that, < God is said 

to harden, when he indulges sinners with for- 

sect, vi. bearance ; and to pity, when he visits and afflicts, 

Erasmus' mv *ting to repentance by severity.' What did 

trope God omit, pray, in the way of afflicting, chas- 

makes tising, calling Pharaoh to repentance? Do we 

of Moses, not number ten plagues, as inflicted in that land? 

and leaves If your definition stands good; that, ' to have 

tied. DOt mercy is straightway to chastise and call the 

sinner ; * assuredly, God had mercy upon Pharaoh. 

Why then does not God say, I will have mercy 

upon Pharaoh, instead of saying I will harden 

Pharaoh's heart? For, when he is in the very 

act of pitying him ; that is, as you will have it, 

of afflicting and chastising him ; he says, c I will 

harden him ; ' that is, as you will have it, ( I will 

do him good, and will bear with him : ' what can 

be more monstrous to hear, than this ? What has 

now become of your tropes, your Origen, your 

Jerome, and your most approved doctors; whom 

the solitary individual, Luther, is rash enough to 

contradict? But it is the foolishness of the flesh 

which compels you to speak thus ; sporting as 

she does with the words of God, which she cannot 

believe to have been spoken in earnest. 

The text itself therefore, as written by Moses, 
proves incontrovertibly, that these tropes are 
mere inventions, and of no worth in this place ; 
and that something very different and far greater — 
over and above the bestowal of benefits, together 
with affliction and correction — -is meant by the 
words, U I will harden Pharaoh's heart:" since 
we cannot deny that both these expedients were 
tried in Pharaoh's case, with the greatest care 

mercies as 'well as judgments ; and does soften by judgments, 
as well as mercies : but both the hardening and the softening 
are distinct from the dispensations which are made the instru- 
ment of producing them. It is a variety in the spirit which 
meets with them, and upon which they act, which causes 
variety .;in the result. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 251 

and pains. For what wrath and correction could sec. vn. 

be more urgent, than that which he was called to — ' 

endure, whilst stricken with so many signs and 
plagues, that even Moses himself testifies the 
like were never seen ! Nay, even Pharaoh him- 
self was moved by them more than once, as though 
he repented : albeit, not moved to purpose, 1 nor 
abidingly. At the same time, what forbearance 
and kindness could be more abundant, than that 
which so readily took away his plagues, so often 
forgave his sin, k so often restored his blessings, so 
often removed his calamities ? Each sort of dis- 
pensation, however, is unavailing ; the Lord still 
says, * I will harden Pharaoh's heart/ You see 
then, that even though your hardening and your 
mercy (that is, your glosses and tropes) should 
be admitted in their highest degree, use, and 
exemplification — such as they are exhibited 
to us in Pharaoh — there still remains an act of 
hardening; and the hardening of which Moses 
speaks must be of one sort, and what you are 
dreaming of, another. 

But since I am fighting with men of fiction Necessity 
and with ghosts, let me also be allowed to con- sta J re - , 

i, i . -i . • mams, and 

jure up my ghost and imagine, what is lm- you donot 
possible, that the trope which Diatribe sees in clear God. 
her dream is really used in this passage ; that 
I may see how she evades the being compelled 
to affirm, that we do every thing by God's alone 
will, and by a necessity that is laid upon us; 
as also, how she will excuse God from being him- 
self the author 1 and blameworthy cause of our 
induration. If it be true, that God is said to 

1 Permovetur.] — ' Valde movetur : ' what goes through the 
substance, and disturbs it throughout j not merely stirs the 
surface and margin. 

k Remittit peccatum.~\ So far as withdrawing present judg- 
ment may be taken as a sign of forgiveness : but was his sin 
blotted out ? any one of the sins which had instrumentally 
provoked the visitation I 

1 Autor et culpa. 



252 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. harden us, when he bears with us through an ex- 
ercise of his lenity, and does not forthwith punish 
us ; each of the two following principles still 
remains. First, man does nevertheless necessa- 
sarily serve sin. For, when it has been granted 
that Freewill can not will any thing good (and 
such a sort of Freewill is what Diatribe has under- 
taken to prove), it is made no better by the for- 
bearance of a long-suifering God, but is necessarily 
made worse ; unless through the mercy of God, 
the Spirit be added to it. So that all things still 
happen by necessity; as it respects us. 

Secondly, God seems to be as cruel in bearing 
with men out of lenity, as he is thought to be 
through our representation; who say, that he 
hardens in the exercise of that inscrutable will of 
his. m For, since he sees that Freewill can will 
nothing good, and is made worse by his lenity in 
bearing with us, this very lenity exhibits him in 
the most cruel form, as one that is delighted with 
our calamities : seeing he could heal them, if he 
would ; and could avoid bearing with us if he 
would; or rather, could not bear with us, except it 
were his will to do so : for who could compel him 
to do so, against his will ? If that will therefore 
remains, without which nothing happens in the 
world; and it be granted, that Freewill can 
will nothing good; all that is said to excuse 
God, and to accuse Freewill, is said to no pur- 
pose. For Freewill is always saying, e I cannot, 
and God will not : what can I do ? Let him shew 
me mercy, forsooth, by afflicting me ; I am never 
the forwarder for it, but must be made worse ; 
except he give me the Spirit. This he does not 
give ; which he would give, if it were his will to 
do so : it is certain therefore, that he wills not 
to give it/ n 

m Volendo voluntate Hid imperscrutabili.~] See above, Part iii. 
Sect, xxviii. notes l v x . 

n Luther's drift is, ' There must be a will of God distinct 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 253 

Nor are the similes, which she adduces, at all sec.viii. 
to the purpose, when she says, c As mud is hard- "~ 7~7~ 
ened by the self-same sun which melts wax ; and, ^iies of 
as the cultivated ground produces fruit by means sun and 
of the self-same shower from which the untilled ™j." e J e " 
sends forth thorns ; even so, by the self-same 
forbearance of God, some are hardened and 
others converted/ 

We do not divide Freewill into two different 
sorts, making one to be mud and the other wax ; 
or one to be cultivated ground, and the other 
neglected ground : but we speak of one sort of 
Freewill, which is equally impotent in all men ; 
which is nothing else but the mud, nothing else but 
the untilled ground, in these comparisons — seeing 
it is what cannot will good. Nor does Paul say 
that God, in his character of the potter, makes 
one vessel to honour and another to dishonour, 
out of a different lump of clay; but " of the same 
lump, saith he, the potter maketh, &c." So 
that, as the mud always becomes harder, and the 
uncultivated ground more thorny, by the sun 
and rain, severally ; even so, Freewill is always 
made worse, as well by the indurating mildness 
of the sun as by the liquefying violence of the 
rain.° If the definition of Freewill then be one, 
and its impotency the same in all men ; no reason 
can be assigned, why one man's Freewill attains 
to grace, and another man's does not ; if no other 
cause be declared than the forbearance of an 
enduring God and the correction of a pitying one : 
for it is assumed, by a definition which makes no 
distinctions, that Freewill in every man is a 
power which can will nothing good. Then it will 

from that which he has revealed for the regulation of man's 
conduct : what he calls ' the inscrutable will/ or ' will of the 
hidden God.' — My quarrel against him is, that he does not 
shew the connection and coincidence between these two wills ; 
and does not shew a reason for this apparently harsh conduct. 
See, as before. 

° Tempestate pluvice liquefaciente. 



254 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. follow, that neither does God elect any man, 
■ neither is there any place left for election ; but 

man's Freewill alone elects, by accepting or re- 
jecting forbearance and wrath. But deprive God 
of his wisdom and power in election, and what 
do you make him but a sort of phantom of for- 
tune; whose nod is the rash ordainer of all 
things ? p Thus, we shall at length come to this, 
that men are saved and damned, without God's 
knowing it : seeing, he has not separated the saved 
and the damned by a determined election ; but — 
bestowing on all, without distinction, first a kind- 
ness which bears with them and hardens them ; 
then a pity which corrects and punishes them — 
has left it to men, to determine whether they will 
be saved or damned ; and himself, meanwhile, has 
just stepped out perhaps to a banquet of the 
Ethiopians, as Homer describes him. q 

Aristotle also paints just such a God for us; r 

p Cujus numine omnia temere ftunt. Chance is the God. 

*1 Zevs <yap eV' 'Qiceavou jaer a/mv/xova<i AlOiOTrrjas 
X^t^os ej3w fiera calra' Qeoi d a/xa 7ravTe9 €7tovto' 
AivSeKarn 8e rot avOis ehev&erai Ov\v/H7rop8e' 

Iliad, A. 423—425. 

r Aristotle, the disciple and opponent of Plato, the tutor of 
Alexander, the great master of rhetoric, belles lettres, logic, 
physics, metaphysics, and heathen ethics, was in theology 
little better than an Epicurean ; one of those ( who have learned 
that the Gods spend a life without care.' (Hor. 1. Sat. v. 101.) 
It is said in excuse for the less explicit parts of his system, that 
' he attached himself to the principles of natural philosophy, 
rather than those of theology.' He maintained the existence 
of a God as the great mover of all things ; which have been 
put into motion from eternity, and will continue in motion to 
eternity. Thus he maintained the eternity of matter as well 
as of God, He painted this God finely : ' the necessary being;' 
f the first, and the most excellent of beings;' ' immutable, in- 
telligent, indivisible, without extension:' * He resides above 
the enclosure of the world/ ' He there finds his happiness in 
the contemplation of himself.' — How apt is the expression, by 
which Luther describes him as painting God ! (pinxit) a rhe- 
torical term applied to that sort of discourse ' which is embel- 
lished with tropes and figures, such as display much genius, but 
charm by their sweetness., rather than edify by their intelligence,' 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 255 

one who sleeps, for example, and suffers any that sec.viil 

will, to use and to abuse his goodness and his 

severity. 5 And how can reason judge otherwise 
of God, than Diatribe here does ? For, as she 
herself snores away, and despises divine things; 

Aristotle's God, then, is one who keeps order in the heavens, 
but interferes in a very limited degree with earth. ' All the 
movements of nature are in some sort subordinated to him ; He 
appears to be the cause and principle of every thing; He 
appears to take some care of human affairs. But, in all the 
universe, He can look upon nothing but Himself; the sight 
of crime and of disorder would defile his eyes : He could not 
know how to be the author either of the prosperity of the 
wicked, or of the misery of the good. His superintendence is 
like that of the master of a family, who has established a cer- 
tain order of things in his household, and takes care that the 
end which he has in view be accomplished, but shuts his eyes 
to their divisions and their vices, and only takes care to obviate 
the consequences of them. He stamped the impress of his 
will upon the universe, when first he projected it like a ball 
from his hand ; and it is by a general, not minute, superintend- 
ence, that he sustains it. The perpetuation of the several 
species of beings is his grand object : which he secured by his 
one first impulse.'* — Has Luther calumniated this philosopher? 
Yet was this heathen teacher made the great model for instruc- 
tion to the christian church, both as to form and substance, for 
many ages. During the second period of the reign of the 
schoolmen, which began early in the thirteenth century, his 
reputation was at its height : the most renowned doctors wrote 
elaborate commentaries upon his works. The predominance of 
his philosophy — c a philosophy, which knew nothing of original 
sin and native depravity ; which allowed nothing to be crimi- 
nal, but certain external flagitious actions 5 and which was 
unacquainted with any righteousness of grace, imputed to a 
sinner' — was itself a corruption, and the fruitful source of other 
corruptions, which cried aloud for reformation, and which the 
reformers of the sixteenth century exposed and suppressed. 
(See Aliln. Eccles. Hist. vol. iv. p. 283.) 

s Correptione.~\ The word has occurred several times be- 
fore, and I have rendered it by ' correction,' ( chastening/ 
( severity.' It properly denotes s the snatching of a substance 
hastily up,' and is applied sometimes to the seizure of the body 
by disease. Hence, it is transferred to a figurative ' cutting 
short.' " At that time the Lord began to cut Israel short" 
(2 Kings x. c 23.) ; and so, to c reprehension, chiding and 
chastisement ' in general. 

* I am indebted to the Abbe Bartbelemi's Anacharsis for this concise but 
eloquent view of Aristotle's Theology, vol. v. chap, lxiv. 



256 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part IV. so, she judges even of God, that he in some, sort 

snores away ; and, having nothing to do with the 

exercise of wisdom, will and present power 1 in 
electing, separating and inspiring, has committed 
to men this busy and troublesome work of accept- 
ing and rejecting his forbearance and his wrath. 
This is what we come to, whilst coveting to mete 
out, and excuse God, by the counsel of human 
reason; whilst, instead of reverencing the secrets 
of His Majesty, we break in to scrutinize them — 
overwhelmed with his glory, instead of uttering 
one single plea in excuse for him, we vomit forth 
a thousand blasphemies ! We forget our own- 
selves also the mean while, and chatter, like mad 
people, both against God and against ourselves, 
in the same breath; though our design is to speak 
with great wisdom, both for God and for our- 
selves. You see here, in the first place, what 
this trope and gloss of Diatribe's makes of God : 
but do you not also see, how vastly consistent she 
is with herself in it ? She had before made Free- 
will equal and alike in all, by including all in one 
definition; but now, in the course of her dispu- 
tation, she forgets her own definition, and makes 
a cultivated Freewill one, and an uncultivated 
Freewill another; setting out a diversity of Free- 
wills, according to the diversity of works, habits, 
and characters; one that can do good, another 
that cannot do good : and this, by its own powers, 
before grace received; by which powers of its 
own, she had laid it down in her definition, that 
Freewill could not of itself will any thing good. 
Thus it comes to pass, that, if we will not leave 
to the sole will of God both the will and the power 
to harden, and to shew mercy, and to do every 
thing; we must ascribe to Freewill herself the 
power of doing every thing, without grace : al- 
though we have denied that it can do any thing 
good without grace. 

* Sap. vol. pmsentid elig. discern, inspir, omissd. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 257 

The simile of the sun and rain, then, is of no sec.ix.; 
force as to this point. A Christian will use 
that simile with far greater propriety, consider- 
ing the Gospel to be that sim and rain (as Ps. 
xix. and Heb. vi. do) ; the cultivated ground, the 
elect; the uncultivated, the reprobate. The 
former of these are edified and made better by 
the word; the latter are oifended and made 
worse: whereas Freewill, when left to herself, 
is in all men the uncultivated ground; yea, the 
kingdom of Satan. 

Let us also look into her reasons for imagining Erasmus's 
this trope in this place. It seems absurd, says J^troT* 
Diatribe, that God, who is not only just but also dzingcon- 
good, should be said to have hardened a man's aideied » 
heart in order to manifest his own power by the 
man's wickedness. So she runs back to Origen ; 
who confesses, that God gave occasion to the in- 
duration, but flings back the blame upon Pharaoh. 
Origen has, besides, remarked that the Lord 
said, ic For this cause have I raised thee up :" He 
does not say, ' for this cause have I made thee. 9 
No : for Pharaoh would not have been wicked, 
if he had been such as God made him ; God hav- 
ing beheld all his works, and they were very good. 
So much for Diatribe. 

Absurdity, then, is one of the principal reasons Absurdity 
for not understanding Moses's and Paul's words £°. tasut - 
in their simple and literal sense. But what ar- son . 
tide of faith is violated by this absurdity, and 
who is offended by it ? Human reason is of- 
fended : and she forsooth, who is blind, deaf, 
foolish, impious and sacrilegious in her dealings 
with all the words and works of God, is brought 
in here to be the judge of God's works and words. 
Upon the same principle, you will deny all the 
articles of the christian faith ; inasmuch as it is 
the most absurd thing possible, and, as Paul 
says, " to the Jews a stumbling block, and 
to the Gentiles foolishness," that God should 



258 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part IV. become man, the son of a virgin ; that he should 
11 have been crucified ; that he should be sitting at 
the right hand of the Father. It is absurd, I say, 
to believe such things. Let as therefore invent some 
tropes like those of the Arians, to prevent Christ 
from being God absolutely? Let us invent some 
tropes like those of the Manicheans/ to prevent 

u Simpliciter, opposed to Jig uratiuehj. See Sect. iii. note 9. 
v The Manichees, so called from Manes their founder, arose 
in the reign of the Emperor Probus, a. d. 277- ' Like most of 
the ancient heretics, they abounded in senseless whims, not 
worthy of any solicitous explanation. This they had in com- 
mon with the Pagan philosophers, that they supposed the 
Supreme Being to be material, and to penetrate all nature. 
Their grand peculiarity was to admit of two independent prin- 
ciples, a good and an evil one, in order to solve the arduous 
question concerning the origin of evil. Like all heretics, they 
made a great parade of seeking truth with liberal impartiality, 
and were thus qualified to deceive unwary spirits, who, far 
from suspecting their own imbecility of judgment, and re- 
gardless of the word of God and hearty prayer, have no idea of 
attaining religious knowledge by any other method than by 
natural reason.' ' Like air other heretics they could not stand 
before the Scriptures. They professedly rejected the Old 
Testament, as belonging to the malignant principle ; and, when 
they were pressed with the authority of the New, as corrobo- 
rating the Old, they pretended the New was adulterated. — 
Is there any new thing under the sun ? Did not Lord Boling- 
broke set up the authority of St. John against St. Paul ? Have 
we not heard of some parts of the Gospel as not genuine, be- 
cause they suit not Socinian views ? Genuine christian prin- 
ciples alone will bear the test, nor fear the scrutiny of the 
whole word of God.' — Augustine, who lived about a century 
after they had first arisen, describes them to the life ; after 
having himself smarted under the poison of their arrows, 
for about twelve years : seduced partly by their subtile and 
captious questions concerning the origin of evil, partly by 
their blasphemies against the Old Testament saints. — 
With respect to the person of Christ, their heresy was like 
that of the Gnostics, or Docetae : worthy children of Simon 
Magus ! They held that the Lord Jesus Christ, had no proper 
humanity ; the mere phantasm of a man having glided, as 
Luther here describes it, through the virgin's womb, and after- 
wards expired upon the cross. — ' Yet though my ideas were 
material, says Augustine, I could not bear to think of God 
being flesh. That was too gross and low in my apprehensions. 
Thy only begotten son appeared to me as the most lucid part 
of thee, afforded for our salvation. I concluded that such a 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 259 

his being a real man ; and let us make him out to SECT.ix. 

be a sort of phantom, which glided through the 

virgin (like a ray of the sun through a piece of 
glass), and was crucified. A nice way of handling 
Scripture ! 

And yet these tropes get us no forwarder, and Does not 
do not serve to evade the absurdity : for it still SSSSJj?" 
remains absurd in the eye of reason that this just 
and good God should demand impossibilities of 
Freewill ; and when Freewill cannot will good, 
but by necessity serves sin, should nevertheless 
impute it to her ; and so long as he withholds the 
Spirit, should not be a whit more kind, or more 
merciful, than if he were to harden or permit men 
to be hardened. Reason will be again and again 
repeating, that these are not the acts of a kind 
and merciful God. These things so far exceed 
her apprehension, and she so wants power to take 
even her own self captive, that she cannot believe 
God to be good if he should act and judge so; 
but setting faith aside, demands that she should 
be able to touch and see and comprehend how 
it is that He is just and not cruel. Now she 
would have this sort of comprehension if it were 
said of God, c he hardens nobody, he damns 
nobody ; on the contrary, he pities every body, 
he saves everybody/ so as that hell should be 
destroyed, and the fear of death removed, and no 
future punishment dreaded. Hence it is, that she 
becomes so boisterous and so vehement x in ex- 
nature could not be born of the Virgin Mary, without par- 
taking of human flesh, which I thought must pollute it. 
Hence arose my fantastic ideas of Jesus, so destructive of all 
piety. Thy spiritual children may smile at me with charitable 
sympathy, if they read these my confessions ; such however 
were my views.' — Milner in Augustine's Confessions, Eccles. 
Hist. vol. ii. pp. 314—327. 

x Mstuat et contendit.'] Mst. denoting violent heat in gene- 
ral, is especially applied to the boiling and swelling of the sea, 
when it ebbs and flows, or rises in surges and waves. Contend, 
expresses the full stretch of every nerve and muscle in close 
conflict. 

s2 



260 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part IV. cusing and defending the just and beneficent God. 

' Faith and the Spirit, however, judge differently; 

they believe God to be good, although he should 
destroy all men. And of what use is it, that we 
are wearied to death with these elaborate specu- 
lations that we may be enabled to remove the 
blame of induration from God to Freewill. 
Let Freewill do what she can, with all her 
means y and all her might in exercise, she will 
never furnish an example of avoiding to be har- 
dened where God has not given his Spirit, or of 
earning mercy where she has been left to her 
own powers. For, what is the difference whether 
she be hardened or deserve to be hardened ; since 
hardening is necessarily in her, so long as that 
impotency, by which, according to Diatribe her- 
self, she cannot will good, is in her. Since the 
absurdity then is not removed by these tropes, or, if 
removed, is removed but to make way for greater 
absurdities, and to ascribe all power to Freewill ; 
away with these useless and misleading tropes, 
and let us stick to the pure and simple word of 
God. 
sect. x. < The other principal reason why this trope 

should be received is, that the things which God 

ratde aiT* W&h made are very good : and God does not 

things very say, I have made thee for this very thing, but for 

good not a this very thing I have raised thee up/ 

reason. First I answer, that this was said before the 

fall of man, when the things which God had 

made were very good. But it follows presently, 

in the third chapter, how man was made evil, 

deserted of God and left to himself. From this 

man, so corrupted, all men are born, and born 

y Toto mundo totisque viribus.~\ Mundus is properly e the 
stuff of the world' — the materials of which it is constituted — 
and is transferred ihence to all kinds of furniture and provi- 
sion — specially to ' women's dress and ornaments:' ' instru- 
mentum ornatus muliebris.' I would not be sure that Luther 
has not some allusion to ' Madam Diatribe's ' adornments 
here. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 261 

wicked ; Pharoah amongst the rest. As Paul SECT. X. 

says, " We were all by nature the children of 

wrath, even as others." God therefore did make 
Pharaoh wicked ; that is, out of a wicked and 
corrupted seed. As he says in the Proverbs of 
Solomon, " The Lord hath made all things for 
himself, yea, even the wicked man for the day of 
evil" (not indeed by creating wickedness in him, 
but by forming him out of an evil seed and 
ruling him.) It is not a just conclusion there- 
fore, * God formed the wicked man, therefore he 
is not wicked/ For how can it be that he is 
not wicked, springing as he does from a wicked 
seed ? As he says in Psalm li. " Behold I was 
conceived in sins." And Job says, " Who can 
make clean that which has been conceived of 
unclean seed?" For although God does not make 
sin, still he ceases not to form and to multiply a 
nature which has been corrupted by sin, through 
the withdrawal of the Spirit: just as if a car- 
penter should make statues of rotten wood. 
Thus men are made just such as their nature 
is, through God's creating and forming them of 
that nature. 2 

z Luther has not exactly hit the nail upon the head here. 
He declares that God makes ' wicked man;' and that he so 
makes him, through the faultiness of the materials which he has 
to work with, being fitly compared to c a carpenter who should 
make statues of rotten wood.' Moreover, this faultiness of the 
materials arose from the sin of the first man- who was created 
having the Spirit, what he elsewhere calls c the firstfruits of 
the Spirit,' (Part hi. Sect, xviii.) which he lost by his sin and 
fall -, being thenceforth deserted of God, and left to himself. — I 
deem both these propositions objectionable and false. Neither 
doth God make sinners ; neither did he withdraw the Spirit 
from Adam by reason of his sin, and so, through him, from the 
race which has sprung from him ; for he never had it. — When 
God created man in his own image, he created every man. 
The substance of every individual man and woman which exists, 
hath existed, and shall exist till the trumpet shall sound and 
the dead shall be raised, was enclosed in the first man, Adam. 
No ne0 matter of human kind has been brought into existence 
since that moment 5 no human being has been created thero- 



262 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. Secondly I answer, if you will have those 
words, " were very good/' to be understood of 

fore, posterior to it. (See Locke's Essay, book ii. chap. xxvi. 
sect. 2.) Nor was this creation the mere production of a mass 
of human substance, like so much clay in the hands of a potter 
which was afterwards to be moulded into distinct vessels. 
Distinctness and individuality of subsistence was given to the 
several individuals of the human race in that instant. This 
appears, as well from other considerations which might be 
stated, as from these eminently ; 1 . Man is spoken of, and 
spoken to, as plural. (" Let them have dominion." " Male and 
female created he them." " God blessed them, and God said 
unto them, Be ye fruitful and multiply." " And called their name 
Adam, in the day when they were created.") 2. God is de- 
clared to have created them male and female : a fact which the 
Lord Jesus refers to (Matt. xix. 4, 5. Mark x. 6.), as indicative 
of his Father's will concerning marriage. (It is clearly not the 
formation of Eve to which he refers, but that act of creation 
which distinctly preceded the making of the help-meet.) 
3. God is said to have chosen his people to be in Christ before 
the foundation of the world ; which implies that the whole race 
was contemplated as personally and individually subsistent, in 
a state prior to the exercise of that choice. — Having thus given 
a distinct personal subsistence to every individual of the human 
race in Adam, when the Lord God added the procreative 
power, and gave command to exercise it ; essentially he did 
make every individual : the substance about to come forth, in 
the Lord's time, into manifest existence and distinct personal 
agency, was already formed • the power and the authority 
which would be necessary to its production, were superadded. 
Then, if this was God's ' condidit' (Luther's term — ' made,' 
< formed,' 'builded'), hath He made ' wicked man?' Is not 
that saying of the Preacher hereby, and hereby only, shewn to 
be true, u God hath made man upright?" (Eccles. vii. 29.) — 
The only consideration, which can have^my shew of involving 
God in the propagation of the wicked, is, that he did not at 
once destroy the offender, and those who had offended in him. 
But, without here suggesting counsel and design (we are deal- 
ing with facts) , the living substances were formed ; the power 
and the authority for production had been given -, a curse was 
upon them, which they must be brought out into manifest 
existence that they might be seen and known to bear. — I 
cannot but remark, that these, or some such reasons, which 
arise out of the reality of their previous distinct subsistence, 
seem absolutely necessary to the vindication of God from the 
charge of propagating sin. — If it be asked then, but how could 
those who had no eye to see, no ear to hear, no hand to put 
forth, commit an act of disobedience ? The answer is, Adam was 
the sole personal agent (" By one man sin entered into the world/' 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 263 

the' works of God after the fell, you will observe sect. x. 
they are spoken not of us, but of God. He does ' 

" by one mans offence death reigned by one ;!' ek by the offence 
of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation") ; but 
every individual of the race was enclosed in, and was part of 
his substance, so that he could not do any thing in which any 
one of them was not one with him. — My head offendeth j but 
where is my hand and my foot, in the' transgression and in its 
punishment ? — That this is the Scripture view of the fall — ( one 
personal agent j but every human being partaker with him in 
the offence' — is decisively shewn from Romans v. 12. Whether 
e0' to be rendered in whom, (" through him in whom all sin- 
ned" — which I greatly prefer), or for that : the words which 
follow make it plain, that c all men ' are dealt with — or rather, 
all men, from Adam to Moses, were dealt with — on the 
ground of the first transgression. — I have no other clue to my 
own character ; I have no other clue to my own state. Nor 
can I otherwise explain what is thus made clear in the spirit 
and behaviour of other men. — And does not the church of 
England recognise this account of the matter in her baptismal 
service, when she prays that the infant ' may receive remission 
of his sins by spiritual regeneration-' and afterwards instructs 
the priest to speak to the god-fathers and god-mothers in this 
wise ; ' Ye have prayed that our Lord Jesus Christ would 
vouchsafe to release him of his sins.' What sins r — This is 
the reality of ( original sin 5' whence flowed c original guilt 5' 
whence flowed c depravation of nature,' so commonly mistaken 
for it. This alone constitutes every son and daughter of fallen 
Adam a fallen creature 3 not merely child of the fallen, but 
themselves, individually and personally, fallen from their own 
original uprightness, in him. — I have hinted that this is not the 
place to speak of counsel and design ; with which all this was 
done : but it is obvious that hereby a way was made for that 
further and more complete developement of God (by the as- 
sumption of new relations), which could not be made by simple 
creation, but to which creation was the stepping-stone. (See 
Part hi. Sect, xxviii. notes * and v .) 

Luther is again in mistake (see Part hi. Sect, xviii. note fc ) 
about the creation state of man ■ speaking as though the pos- 
session of the Spirit were a part of his endowments. — ' Deser- 

tus a Deo ac sibi relictus' e naturam peccato, subtract© 

spiritu, vitiatam.'— The Lord God having formed his animal 
structure out of the dust of the ground — a compound mass — ■ 
breathed into his nostrils breath of <c lifes," and man became 
a living soul. This continuity of soul and body — simple soul, 
and compounded body — soul, which was an image of Him that 
is a Spirit 5 and body, in which he resembled and was par- 
taker with the brutes — constituted his essential nature $ the 
solution of which continuity constitutes death. So constituted. 



264 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part IV. not say, man saw the things which God had 
made, and they were very good. Many things 

he had capacities with which to learn, and sources of instruc- 
tion from which to derive much knowledge of God. The Lord 
God conversed with him face to face, and he dwelt amongst the 
teaching creatures of His hand ; even as he was himself the 
most teaching of all creatures. But where is the Spirit ? 
meaning the Holy Ghost. Had he possessed this — had the 
Spirit dwelt and walked in Him — that is, been continually pre- 
sent with Him, acting in Him and by Him — he had possessed 
union with God : a privilege which was not essential to his 
condition and relation as the moral creature of God, but which 
might, or might not, be added to it. That it was not added is 
plain, as from other considerations, so from this ; that if it was 
added, then it was either conquered in the temptation, or with- 
drawn previous to it : I know not what a conquered Holy 
Ghost can mean; and if withdrawn prior to the temptation, its 
withdrawal would constitute him a different creature from that 
to which the temptation law had been given.* — But now, 
being simply a creature, and therefore mutable, he was liable 
to fall by temptation. Accountability implies account to be 
rendered 5 account implies trial ; trial implies the presence of 
that in the tried substance which may be turned to evil. Was 
not this precisely Adam's state and constitution ? '. Good,' 
' very good,' as he came out of the hands of his Creator, his 
good might be made evil. Those appetites and passions, the 
appendages of his will ; which, in his creation, and until evil 
was suggested from without, were pure, fixed on fit objects, 
and acted in purity ; were liable to be turned to other objects, 
and thus to become evil. Desire of knowledge, desire of 
pleasant food, taking pleasure in Avhat is beautiful to the eye — 
all of which were sound and pure in creation — might thus, by 
suggestions thrown in, become evil : as infectious fever, or the 
serpent's bite, poisons healthful blood. If no evil were sug- 
gested, there would continue only good ; the suggestion, by 
being entertained, mars them. — Then, was God debtor to 
Adam, to withhold temptation from him 3 or to minister super- 

* Luther's misapprehension has much to do with a mistake about the 
Spirit's actings. He seems to have thought, as many now do, that there 
might be a sort of ' fast and loose' playings of the Spirit. The Spirit, 
when given, acts in earnest and efficaciously. — Would Luther say, ' does he 
always act efficaciously in. the Lord's called people, now/' I answer, the 
cases are not parallel. We have the Spirit not as our own, and in our Adam 
selves, but in Christ. When we fall, it is not ' the Spirit conquered,' but 
the Spirit not energizing : what could not have happened to Adam. — Luther's 
expressions are ambiguous as to the period when the Spirit was withdrawn ; 
whether before, or after the temptation. In a former note (Part iii. Sect, xviii. 
note t) I have dealt with him as representing it to have been withdrawn 
before the temptation. A careful comparison of the several passages in 
which he refers to it leads me to conclude, that he supposed it not withdrawn 
till after the sin had been committed. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 265 

seem very good to God, and are so; which to us SECT.xi. 
appear very bad, and are so. Thus afflictions, 
calamities, errors, hell, nay all the best works of 
God, are, in the sight of the world, very bad and 
damnable. What is better than Christ and the 
Gospel ? but what more hateful to the world ? 
How those things then shall be good in the sight 
of God, which are evil in our eyes, is a mystery 
known to God only, and to those who see with 
God's eyes ; that is, who have the Spirit. But 
there is no need of so subtile a strain of argu- 
mentation just yet. a The former answer is suffi- 
cient for the present. 

It is asked perhaps, how God can be said to How God 
work evil in us ■ as for example, to harden, to ^°u S s C on, 
give men up to their lusts, to tempt, and the sidered. 
like ? We ought, forsooth, to be contented with 
the words of God, and simply b to believe what 
they affirm ; since the works of G od quite surpass 
all description. But, by way of humouring rea- 
son, which is another name for human folly, I am 
content to be silly and foolish, and to try if I can 
at all move her by turning babbler. 

In the first place, even reason and Diatribe 
concede that God worketh all things in all things ; 
and that nothing is effected, or is efficacious 
without him. He is omnipotent; and this apper- 
tained to his oinnipotency, as Paul says to the 

creation aid, fortified as he was by creation endowments, to 
keep him from falling ; or to heal his wounds, and restore 
soundness and peace to him, when as he had freely fallen ? 

a Tarn acutd disputatione.~\ A sharp, keen, refined distinction : 
something like what is ascribed to the " word of God" (Heb. 
iv. 12.) " piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and 
spirit, and of the joints and marrow." Disp. ( the act of dis- 
puting,' or ( the debate held.' 

b Simpliciter credere. ,] ' Simply,' as opposed to arguments and 
investigations. Faith receives implicitly what God explicitly 
declares. 

c Balbatiendo .] Properly, to f lisp, stammer, or stutter.' There 
seems to be some allusion to 2 Cor. xi. " Would to God ye 
could bear with me a little in my folly : and indeed bear with 
me." u I speak as a fool." (( I speak foolishly," 



266 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. Ephesians. d Satan then and man having fallen 

from God, and being deserted by him, cannot will 

good ; that is, cannot will those things which 
please God, or which God wills. They are turned 
perpetually towards their own desires, so that 
they cannot but seek what is their own, and not 
his. This will and nature of theirs therefore, 
which is thus averse from God, still remains a 
something. Satan and the wicked man are not a 
nothing, having no nature or will, though they 
have a nature which is corrupt and averse from 
God. This remainder of nature, therefore, in the 
wicked man and in Satan, of which we speak, 
seeing it is the creature and work of God, 
is not less subject to omnipotency and to divine 
actings, than all the other creatures and works of 
God. 

Since then God moves and actuates all things 
in all things, it cannot be but that he also moves 
and acts in Satan and in the wicked. But he acts 
in them according to what they are, and what he 
finds them ; that is, since they are averse from him 
and wicked, and are hurried along by this im- 
pulse of the divine omnipotency, they do only 
such things as are averse from him and wicked. 
Just as a horseman, driving a horse which is lame 
in one or two of his feet, drives him according to 
his make and power ; and so the horse goes ill. 
But what can the horseman do? he drives the 
horse such as he is in a drove of sound horses ; 
he makes him go ill, the others well ; f it cannot 
be otherwise, unless the horse be cured. By this 
illustration you see how it is, that, when God 
works in bad men and by bad men, evil is the 
result; but it cannot be that God cloeth wickedly, 
although he works evil by the agency of evil 

d Ephes. i. 2. 

e Self is their idol, to the dethronement of God. Their own 
interests and gratification, not God's, are sought. Philip, ii. 9,1'. 

f Illo male, isiis bene.'] More literally, c he does well with, 
and he does ill with.' Agit cum must be understood. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 267 

men, because lie, being good himself, cannot do sect.xi'. 
wickedly ; g but still he uses evil instruments — — — a 
which cannot escape the seizure and impulse of 
his power. The fault therefore is in the instru- 
ments, which God does not suffer to remain idle, 
that evil is done; God, meanwhile, himself being 
the impeller of them. Just as if a carpenter should 
cut ill by cutting with an axe that is c toothed and 
sawed/ Hence it arises, that the wicked man 
cannot but go astray and commit sin continually ; 
inasmuch as being seized and urged by the power 
of God, he is not allowed to remain idle; but 
wills, desires, acts, just according to what he is. h 

s This is very much like saying ' doeth good because he is 
good, and is good because he is good.'— It is too much like the 
* ipse dixit' of the Pythagoreans. 

h The amount of Luther's explanation of the mystery of 
God's agency in the wicked, as given in his folly, is, 1 . That 
they are still real existences. 2. Still God's creatures. 3. That 
he works all things in them, even as he does in all his crea- 
tures. 4. That he works in them according to their nature : 
that hence he does all their evil in them, but does no evil himself. 
All this is true ; but it is baldly told, and wants opening, 
confirmation, and some additions. He ought to shew us how 
man came to be what he is, in consistency with God's volun- 
tarily contracted obligations to him ; he ought to shew us the 
nature and manner of his agency in the wicked ; he ought to 
shew us how God, in consistency with himself, ordained and 
wrought the fall, and continues wicked man in being ; yea, 
works wickedness by him, instead of destroying him and put- 
ting an end to the reign of evil. — I say, he ought to have shewn 
these things ; because, though he talks of * silliness' and ' fool- 
ishness,' and ' babbling,'* it is plain that he means a serious 
and sober solution of the difficulty. — Then, with respect to the 
first of these shewings, man, as we have seen in a former note,f 
had a constitution imparted, and a state assigned to him, in 
which trial was implied, and in which he ought to have overcome 
temptation. There was no dereliction of the Creator's engage- 
ments, no withdrawal of any possession or privilege, no 
gainsaying discession or addition, with respect to God's 
previous announcements, either in the operation of the 
fall, or in the inflictions Which followed it. The mutability of 
the creature, as simple creature — the accountability of moral 
creature — and the distinct source (not creation^ but super- 

* Libet ineptire, stultescere, et balbutiendo tentare. 
t See aboye^ Sect. x. note z . 



268 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part IV. These are sure and settled verities, if we, in 
the first place, believe that God is omnipotent; 

SEC. XII. 

— — creation) of the Spirit's within energizings — unveil a just God ; 
How God that is, one who leaves nothing undone which he had freely 
hardens. bound himself to do, and does nothing which he ought not to 
do. — Then, with respect to the second of these shewings, 
Luther compares God's agency in the wicked to a drover 
driving on a lame horse (he means it not irreverently) ; which 
excites the idea of physical rather than moral influence : but 
the truth is, God acts in the wicked as in the righteous, by 
setting, or causing to be set, such considerations before the 
will, as constrain it to choose his will. This is moral neces- 
sity; such a will so addressed cannot choose differently. — Then, 
with respect to the third of these shewings, God's most gra- 
cious and everlasting design of making himself known to, and 
enjoyed by, certain creatures of his hands, according to what 
He really is, affords the ample and adequate reason for all that 
complex, yet simple, system of operation, by which he has been 
dealing with man from the creation to this hour, and shall 
continue to and throughout eternity to deal with him : — with 
man, his great manifester, not only in the blessed human per- 
son of the Lord Jesus Christ (see Part ii. Sect. viii. note r ), but 
also in every individual substance of the whole human race; 
which is made to manifest itself, that he may manifest himself 
by his doings with it. — A sight like this justifies wisdom to her 
children : and, although these considerations may seem to apply 
themselves exclusively to God's dealings with the wicked 5 or 
at farthest, with men -, they will require but little extension, to 
comprehend all creatures. Evil has been introduced into the 
creation of God, and is not destroyed, but continues therein, 
and shall so continue, unto God's glory : because he could not 
be manifested as what he is — the union and concentration of 
all moral excellency — the truth, the love, the power, the 
wisdom — the good one — without it. — And what is this * evil,' 
which has thus come into, and thus abides in God's world ? a 
person — as we are apt to account it, having scriptural autho- 
rity for so speaking of it ; but thinking so of it, too often to our 
hurt ? — Hear what a venerable confessor of the Church has to 
say about it.* ' I now began to understand, that every crea- 
ture of thine hand is in its nature good, and that universal 
nature is justly called on to praise the Lord for his goodness. 
(Psalm cxlviii.) The evil which I sought after has no positive 
existence ; were it a substance, it would be good, because every 
thing individually, as well as all things collectively, is good. 
Evil appeared to be a want of agreement in some parts to others. 
My opinion of the two independent principles, in order to 
account for the origin of evil, was without foundation.! Evil 

* Augustine's Confessions, in Miln. Eccl, Hist. vol. ii. p. 342. 
f See above, Sect. ix. note v , 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 269 

and, in the second, that the wicked man is the SEC. xii. 
creature of God, but being- averse from him, and ' 

left to himself, without the Spirit of God, cannot 
will or do good. God's omnipotence causes that 
the wicked man cannot escape the moving and 
driving of God; but, being necessarily subjected 
to God, he obeys him. Still his corruption, or 
aversation from Gocl, causes that he cannot be 

is not a thing to be created ; let good things only forsake their 
just place, office and order, and then, though all be good in 
their nature, evil, which is only a privative, abounds and pro- 
duces positive misery. I asked what was iniquity, and I found 
it to be no substance, but a perversity of the will, which de- 
clines from thee, the supreme substance, to lower things, and 
casts away its internal excellencies, and swells with pride 
externally.' — If it be true then, that the creature, as creature, is 
essentially mutable (what Augustine, and the schoolmen after 
him, applies to the now corrupted state of the human will* 
being equally applicable to the will of man — to the will of every 
moral creature — in its essence ; viz. that it is vertible) ; if there 
subsist what may fitly be compared to a chord in every moral 
creature, which may be so touched as to yield a jarring note, 
and by its vibration to produce discord throughout the whole 
instrument j if this chord, which is not in itself evil, may be 
so touched by that which is not evil neither, but good (is not 
self-love such a chord, and is not the sense of God's incompa- 
rable excellency, or the intimation of superiority in some other 
like creature of God's, or the suggestion of some flaw, blemish, 
or deficiency in the creature itself — each of which ought only to 
excite humility, submission, and gratitude — such a touch ?) j 
can we have any difficulty in conceiving how Satan was with- 
drawn from his uprightness, when as he was yet only good, 
and nothing but good was to be heard and seen around him ? — 
I am not ignorant that some would divert us altogether from 
contemplations of this kind : but why are we told so much 
about the devil, if we are to have no thoughts about 
his history and origin ? We are taught that ' pride was 
his condemnation' (1 Tim. hi. 6.) ; <( that he was a murderer 
from the beginning, and abode not in the truth" (John viii. 
44.) -, te that he kept not his first estate, but left his own habit- 
ation" (Jude 6.) ; (i that there was war in heaven." (Rev. 
xii. 7-t) Who shall be ashamed to meditate and explore what 
God hath revealed unto his own justification (Rom. iii. 4.) and 
to our furtherance and joy of faith ? (Phil. i. 25.) 

* See Part iii. Sect. i. 

t lam aware, that these words are in their connection to be understood 
prophetically ; but there was a foundation for the allusion. 



270 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part IV. moved and dragged along, according to good. 

■ God cannot relinquish the exercise of his omni- 

potency because of the wicked man's aversation ; 
neither can the wicked man change his aversation 
into good will. Thus it comes to pass, that he of 
necessity errs and sins perpetually, until he he 
rectified by the Spirit of God. Howbeit, in all 
these Satan as yet reigns in peace and keeps his 
palace in quietness, in subordination to this im- 
pulse of the divine omnipotency. After this fol- 
lows the business of hardening; which is in this 
wise. The wicked man, as I have said (and the 
same is true of Satan his prince also), is occupied 
altogether with himself and his own matters ; he 
does not inquire after God, nor care for those 
things which are God's \ but seeks his own wealth, 
his own glory, his own works, his own wisdom, 
his own power ; a kingdom, in short, of his own ; 
and what he wants is to enjoy these things in 
peace. Now, if any one resist him, or have a 
mind to diminish ought from these possessions, 
his aversion, indignation, and rage with which he 
is stirred up against his adversary, are not less 
vehement than his desire with which he pursues 
after these possessions : and he is just as incapable 
of restraining his rage as he is of restraining his 
desire and pursuit; and just as incapable of re- 
straining his desire as of putting an end to his 
existence : of which he is incapable, inasmuch as 
he is the creature of God, though a vitiated one. 

This is the history of that rage of the world 
against God's Gospel. That stronger than he, 
which is to conquer the quiet possessor of the 
palace, comes by the Gospel ; condemning those 
desires of glory and riches, and of his own wis- 
dom and righteousness ; in short, every thing in 
which he confides. This same provoking of the 
wicked, which is effected by God's saying or doing 
something contrary to their wishes, is the harden- 
ing and burdening of them. For, whereas they 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 271 

are averse of themselves through the very corrup- sec.xiii. 

tion of their nature, they are also turned yet more ~ 

out of the way, and made worse, by being resisted 
and robbed, under their averseness. Thus, when 
God was proceeding to snatch his usurped domi- 
nion out of the hands of the wicked Pharaoh, he 
provoked him, and did yet more harden and 
weigh down his heart by assailing him with the 
words of Moses, who threatened to take away 
his kingdom, and to withdraw the people from his 
dominion : meanwhile, he gave him not the Spirit 
within, but allowed his own wicked and corrupt 
nature, in wkieh Satan was reigning, to grow red 
hot, to boil over, to rage and get to its height, 
accompanied with a sort of vain confidence and 
contemptuousness. 

Let not any one think therefore, that God, Mistakes 
when he is said to harden, or to work evil in us P rohlblted « 
(for to harden is to make evil), does so by creating 
evil as it were anew in us: just as you might 
fancy a malignant vintner, full of mischief himself, 
whilst none is in his vessel, to pour or mix poi- 
son into or with the same ; the vessel all the 
while doing nothing itself, save that it receives 
or endures the malignancy of the mixer. For 
when they hear it said, that God works both good 
and evil in us, and that we are subjected to 
the operations of God by a mere passive neces- 
sitj^ ; many seem to fancy, that man, a good sort 
of creature, or at least not a bad one, is, in some 
such way as this, made the subject of a bad work 
of God's. These persons do not sufficiently 
consider what a restless sort of actor God is, in 
all his creatures, and how he suffers none of them 
to have a holyda} r . But let him who would have 
any understanding about such sayings settle it 
thus with himself; that God works evil in us , 

(that is, by us), not through any fault of his, but 
through our own faultiness : we being by nature 
evil, and God good, he hurries us along by means 



272 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part IV. of his own agency (such is the nature of his omni- 
potency), and, good as he is in himself, cannot 
do otherwise than work evil by an evil instru- 
ment; which he makes a good use of however 
(such is his wisdom), by turning it to his own 
glory and our salvation. 1 

In like manner, he finds the will of Satan evil 
without creating it so; what has become such, 
through God's deserting of him and Satan's sin- 
ning ; and finding it so, he lays hold of it in the 
course of his operations, and moves it whither- 
soever he will : yet this will does not cease to be 
evil, because God thus moves it. Just so, David 
says of Shimei (2 Sam. xvi. 10.), " Let him curse, 
for God hath commanded him to curse David." — 
How does God command him to curse ? such a 
malignant and wicked act ! There was no exter- 
nal commandment of this kind to be found any 
where. David then has regard to this consi- 
deration, that the omnipotent God speaks, and it 
is done ; that is, he doeth all things by his eternal 
word. So then, the divine agency and omni po- 
tency seizes hold of the will of Shimei, together 
with all his members — that will which was already 
evil, and which had aforetime been inflamed 
against David; who met him just at the right 
moment, as having deserved such a cursing — and 
even the good God commands (that is, he speaks 
the word and it is done) this curse, which is 
poured out by a wicked and blasphemous organ, 
inasmuch as he seizes hold of that organ, and car- 
ries it along with him in the course of his own 
agency. 
SEC. xiv. Thus he hardens Pharaoh, when he presents his 

fc ■ words and works to his wicked and evil will ; 

Pharaoh's w hi cn that will hates, through innate faultiness, 

case con si- 7 ° ' 

1 The wheels of God's omnipotent providence (see Ezek. i. 
15 — 21.) carry the evil as well as the good along with them in 
their goings : and this unto God's glory j but is it unto salva- 
tion also 1 — This is Luther's defective view. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 273 

no doubt, and natural corruption. Now, when sec.xiv. 

God does not change this will inwardly by his 

Spirit, but persists in presenting and obtruding 
his words and works; and when Pharaoh, on the 
other hand, considering his strength, wealth and 
power, confides in them, through the same natural 
pravity; it comes to pass, that, being puffed up 
and exalted by his own fancied greatness, on the 
one hand, and being rendered a proud despiser 
by the meanness as well of Moses as of the word 
of God which comes to him in an abject form, 
on the other; he is first hardened, and then more 
and more provoked and aggravated, the more 
Moses urges and threatens him. This evil will 
of his, however, would not of itself be stirred up 
to action, or hardened ; but since the omnipotent 
actor drives it along as he does the rest of his 
creatures, by an inevitable impulse, will it must. 
Add to this, that He at the same time presents 
from without that which naturally irritates and 
offends it; so that Pharaoh cannot avoid being 
hardened any more than he can avoid the agency 
of the divine omnipotence, and the aversation or 
malignancy of his own will. So that Pharaoh's 
hardening by God is completed thus; he sets 
before his maliciousness that which he of his own 
nature hates from without; after this he ceases 
not to stimulate that evil will, just such as he finds 
it, by his own omnipotent impulse within. The 
man meanwhile, such being the wickedness of his 
will, cannot but hate what is contrary to himself, 
and confide in his own strength. Thus he is made 
obstinate to such a degree, that he neither hears 
nor has any understanding, but is hurried away 
under the possession of the devil, like one mad 
and raving. k 

k Luther's account of ' hardening' is, 1. God actuates the 
wicked as well as the rest of his creatures, according to 
their nature. <2. Satan is in them unresisted and undisturbed. 
3. They can only will evil. 4. God thwarts them by word, or 

T 



274 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. If this view of the case be satisfactory, I have 
gained my cause ; we agree to explode tropes and 

or deed, or both. All this is correct ; but it is not the whole 
of the matter ; neither does he put the several parts of the 
machinery together, cleverly ; neither does he shew an end. (See 
above, Sect. xi. note h . All these things are of God, through 
God, and to God. (Rom. xi. 36.) The natural man has been 
brought into the state in which he is, of, through, and to him. 
And what is that state ? earthly, sensual, devilish soul (James 
iii. 1.6.), possessed by the devil; to whom it was given up, as a 
prey, in the day of apostasy. Luther distinguishes the ' moving 
and driving,' or e seizing and moving,' of God, from his ( word 
and work.' It is a fine image which he draws of God giving 
motion to ' all creature.' But if this idea be examined, it will 
be found to amount to no more than that God keeps all his 
creatures in a state of being which is accordant to their nature ; 
and that the wicked therefore are, by the necessity of their 
nature, kept by him in a state of activity, and not allowed to be 
torpid, or, as Luther facetiously expresses it, ' to have a holy- 
day.' Particular actings of God, then, upon this substance of the 
human soul, such and so related, are what he expresses by 
God's ' thwarting word and work:' but this thwarting word 
and work extends only to the outside of the man ;foris offert — 
foris objicit. All this while, Satan's is an agency with which, as 
it respects others, God does not interfere : he is no agent, no 
minister of His. Y6u might almost judge from his language 
in some places (contradicted it is true by others), that he ac- 
counted Satan a sort of independent chief. — Now here, if I mis- 
take not, the root of the matter lies. Satan is an agent and 
minister of God. (See Job i. 11. 1 Kings xxii. 19 — 23. 1 Chron. 
xxi. 1. Compare 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. Zech. iii. 1 — 3.) Nor can I 
understand the expressions so repeatedly applied to the case of 
Pharaoh, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart;" nor "Whom he 
will he hardeneth;" nor " God hath given them the spirit 
of slumber;" nor "Thou hast hid these things from the 
wise and prudent;" and the like — without recurring to this 
agency : which obviously meets their full and express import, 
whilst nothing else, or less, does. — And what is the effect of 
this agency but such as hath been already ascribed to the ope- 
ration of God ? (see note h , as before) hereby * He sets, or 
causes to be set, such considerations (it might be added, and 
causes such to be withheld — for Satan throws dust into men's 
eyes ; hinders them from seeing, as well as causes them to see 
wrongly) before the mind of His free-agent, as morally constrain 
him to choose what He hath willed. — what is there that can 
give peace under the realizing consciousness of his being and 
agency, but the assurance that he is in truth only this agent of 
God for good, and nothing but good, to his chosen ? — God's 
hardening> therefore, I define generally to be ( that special opera- 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 275 

the glosses of men, and to understand the words sec.xiv. 
of God literally, that it may not be necessary to 
make excuses for God, or accuse him of injustice. 
When he says, I will harden Pharaoh's heart, he 
speaks in plain language, as if he should say, I 
will cause that the heart of Pharaoh shall be hard- 
ened; or, that it shall be hardened through my 
doings and workings. How this is effected, we 
have heard : it shall be by my exciting his own 
evil will inwardly by that general sort of impulse by 
which I move all things, so that he shall go on under 
his own bias, and in his own course of willing ; 
nor will I cease to stimulate him, nor can I do 
otherwise. I will at the same time present him 
with a word and a work, which that evil bias of 
his will fall foul of; since he can do nothing else 
but choose ill, whilst I stimulate the very sub- 
stance of the evil which is in him, by virtue of my 
omnipotency. 

Thus was God most sure, and thus did he with 
the greatest certainty pronounce, that Pharaoh 
should be hardened, as being most sure, that 
Pharaoh's will could neither resist the excitement 
of his omnipotency, nor lay aside its own mali- 
ciousness, nor receive Moses as a friend when pre- 
senting himself to him as an adversary * but that 
his will would remain evil, and he would neces- 
sarily become worse, harder and prouder, whilst, 

tion of God upon the reprobate soul, by which, through the 
agency of Satan (whose Lord and rider he is), combined with 
his own outward dispensations of word and work, he shuts and 
seals it up in its own native blindness, aversation and enmity to- 
wards himself.' There have been however, and doubtless are, 
certain special and splendid exemplifications of this operation, 
each having its minuter peculiarities, whilst the same essential 
nature pervades all. — Pharaoh is one of these. — Indeed the whole 
history of the Exodus is one of the most luminous displays, 
which the Lord God hath ever made, of the design he is pur- 
suing and accomplishing in having and dealing with creatures • 
second only to the marvellous and complicated history of the 
Lord's death : whereunto also it was appointed 5 whereunto also 
it hath been recorded. 

T 2 



276 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. in pursuing his own natural bias and course, he 

— encountered an opposition which he did not like, 

and which he despised through a confidence in 
his own powers. Thus, you see it here confirmed 
even by this very assertion, that Freewill can do 
nothing but evil ; seeing that God, who neither 
is mistaken through ignorance, nor lies through 
wickedness, so confidently promises the hardening 
of Pharaoh's heart; being sure forsooth, that an 
evil will can will only evil, and, if a good which 
contravenes its own lust be proposed to it, can 
only be made worse thereby. 1 
sec. xv. It remains therefore, that a man may ask, 

6 Why doth not God cease from that very stimu- 

imperti- ] a ti n of his omnipotency by which the wicked 

nent ques- f J J- . 

tionsmay man's will is stirred up to continue in its wicked- 
still be ness, and to wax worse?' I answer, ' This is to 
desire that God should cease to be God for the 
sake of the wicked, if you wish his power and 
agency to cease ; in fact, it is to desire that God 
should cease to be good, least they should be 
made worse/ — But why doth he not at the same 
time change those evil wills which he excites? 
This appertaineth to the secrets of his Majesty ; 
in which his judgments are incomprehensible. 
We have no business to ask this question; our 
business is to adore these mysteries : and if flesh 
and blood be offended here and murmur, let it 
murmur, pray : it will get no forwarder however ; 
God will not be changed for these murmurs. 
And what if ungodly men go away scandal- 
ized in great numbers ? The elect will remain 
notwithstanding. — The same answer shall be given 
to those who ask, c Why he allowed Adam to fall, 

1 " Let my people go that they may serve me," is a good 
demand • but is directly contrary to Pharaoh's will, its course 
and propensity. (See the preceding note.) — Luther makes this 
act of God negative ; save, as respects God's general and par- 
ticular operations in his providence. He does not change the 
will ; he keeps his moral creature in being j he thwarts his in- 
clinations. — What is Satan, meanwhile ; and what does he ? 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 277 

and why he goes on to make all of us., who are sec.xvi. 
infected through the same sin; when he might ; 
have kept him from sinning; and might either have 
created us from another stock, or have purged 
the corrupted seed first?' He is God : whose will 
has no cause or reason™ which can be prescribed 
to it for rule and measure ; seeing it hath no equal 
or superior, but is itself the rule of all things. If 
it had any rule or measure, or cause or reason, 
it could not any longer be the will of God. For 
what he wills is not right, because he ought to 
will so, or ought to have willed so : on the con- 
trary, because he wills so, therefore what is done 
must be right. Cause and reason are prescribed 
to the creature's will, but not to the Creator's; 
unless you would set another Creator over his 
head. n 

By these considerations the trope-making Dia- The trope 

m Nulla est causa, nee ratio.'] Cau. is the correlative of effect ; 
' what gives origin to this will :' rat. e the principle, rate, 
method, and design of its operations 5' which supposes some 
.extrinsic standard. There is no such source, or standard, for 
God's will : no cause which produces it j no Tightness which it 
exemplifies. 

n The defects of Luther's theology are strongly manifested 
in this paragraph. He has no ansAver to give, where a satis- 
factory one is at hand : God continues to move the wicked, 
because it is for his glory that they should go on to act, just 
such as they are. — For the same cause he ordained and brought 
about, or, as Luther speaks, permitted Adam's fall. — God does 
not create* wicked men. (See above, Sect. x. note z .) — God's 
will is cause and reason to itself: but he has a reason for 
all he does ; and this reason, so far as respects his actings with 
which we have to do, is resolvable into self-manifestation. 
(See former notes.) — As to these and such like questions, 
which Luther judges it improper to ask, the whole matter is, 
doth the word of God furnish an answer to them, or not ? If 
it does, we are bound to entertain them and supply the true 

* Strange that he should use the word ' creare,' as applied to our gene- 
ration from Adam. — ' When a thing is made up of particles which did all of 
them before exist, but that very thing, so constituted of preexisting particles, 
had not any existence before ; this, when referred to a substance produced 
in the ordinary course of nature by an internal principle, but set on work by 
and received from some external agent or cause, and working by insensible 
ways which we perceive not, we call generation.' — Locke's Essay, vol. i, chap, 
xxvi. sect. 2. 



278 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. tribe is sufficiently confuted, I think; but let us 
come to the text itself, that we may see what sort 
wlth P the d °f agreement there is between herself and her 
text. trope. It is customary with all those who elude 

arguments by tropes, to despise the text itself 
stoutly, and make it their only labour to pick out 
some one word, and torture it with tropes, and 
crucify it by the sense they impose upon it, with- 
out having the least regard to the surrounding 
context, or to the words which follow and pre- 
cede, or to the author's scope or cause. Thus it 
is with Diatribe here : nothing heeding what 
Moses is about, or what is the aim of his dis- 
course, she snatches this little word ' I will 
harden' (which offends her) out of the text, and 
fashions it after her own pleasure; not at all 
considering in the meanwhile, how it is to be 
brought back and inserted again into the text, 
and to be fitted in so as to square with the body 
of the text. This is just the reason, why Scripture 
is accounted not quite clear, by those most learned 
doctors who have had the greatest possible accept- 
ance amongst men for so many ages. What won- 
der ? The sun himself could not shine if such 
tricks were played with him.° 

But to omit what I have already shewn, that 
Pharaoh is not properly said to be hardened 
because he is endured by God with lenity, and 
not forthwith punished ; since he was chastened 
with so many plagues : if to endure through the 
divine lenity, and not straightway to punish, be 
called hardening, what need was there for God 

answer. How much better than to leave the caviller strong 
in his unanswered cavils ! And what is the result ? a known 
God instead of an unknown ; a God whom we revere., admire,, 
and delight in., when we should otherwise only tremble and 
shudder before him ! 

° Artibus petitus.~\ Pet. ( made the subject of attack ; whe- 
ther by violence., stratagem, or supplication :' probably has allu- 
sion here to some magical incantations by which sorcerers 
pretended to darken the sun ! — See Hor. Epod. v. xvii. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 279 

so often to promise that he would (as a future act) SE - XVII « 
harden Pharaoh's heart, when now the miracles 
were in performance — Pharaoh all the while being 
a man who, before these miracles, and before this 
hardening, having been endured through the 
divine lenity, and not punished, had inflicted so 
many evils upon the children of Israel, in his full- 
blown pride, the offspring of his prosperity and 
wealth? So then, this trope is nothing at all to 
the purpose here ; since it might be applied pro- 
miscuously to all who sin under the endurance of 
divine indulgence. At this rate, we might say 
that all men are hardened : since there is no man 
who does not commit sin ; and no man could 
commit sin, if he were not endured with divine 
indulgence. This hardening of Pharaoh there- 
fore is something different from, and beyond, that 
general endurance of the divine lenity. p 

Rather, Moses's object is not so much to an- Moses's 
nounce Pharaoh's wickedness, as God's truth and ^ c e t a - n ob " 
mercy : that the children of Israel may not for- such re- 
sooth mistrust the promises of God, by which he P eate( ? tes - 
had engaged to liberate them. This deliverance t0 God's 
being a vast thing, he forewarns them of its dif- desi s n and 
ficulty, that their faith may not falter ; knowing hardening 
as they thus would, that all these things had been is to 
predicted, and were receiving such an accom- ig^ef then 
plishment, through the arrangement of that very 
person who had given them the promises. Just 
as if he should say, I am delivering you, it is most 
true ; but you will hardly believe it, Pharaoh will 
make such a resistance, and will so put off the 
event. But trust in my promises not a whit 
the less : all this very putting-off of his will be 
effected by my workings, that I may perform the 

p The word lenitas, which occurs so frequently in this pas- 
sage, properly denotes c softness/ c gentleness/ ' kindness/ as 
opposed to ' roughness/ ' harshness/ ' severity / and seems 
most aptly to express that c forbearance/ or ' indulgence/ 
with which the Lord God suffereth long, and is kind. 



280 BONDAGE OF THE WILL; 

part IV. more and the greater miracles, to confirm you in 
your faith, and to shew my power ; that you may 
hereafter place the greater confidence in me with 
respect to all other things. — This is just what 
Christ also does, when he promises the kingdom 
to his disciples at the last supper : he foretels 
very many difficulties — his own death, and their 
manifold tribulations — that when the event should 
have taken place, they might hereafter believe in 
him much more/ 1 

Indeed, Moses sets this meaning very clearly 
before us, when he says, " But Pharaoh shall" not 
let you go, that many signs may be wrought in 
Egypt/' And again : " To this end have I stirred 
thee up, that I might shew in thee my power, and 
that my name might be declared in all the earth." 
You see here, that Pharaoh is hardened for this 
very purpose, that he may resist God, and may put 
off the redemption of Israel ; in order that occa- 
sion may be made for shewing many signs, and 
for declaring the power of God; to the end, that 
he may be spoken of and believed in, throughout 
all the earth. What is this else, but that all 
these things are spoken and done to confirm faith, 
and to comfort the weak, that they may freely 
trust in God hereafter, as the true, the faithful, 
the powerful and the merciful One? As if he 
would say to his little ones in softest words, ( Be 
not terrified by Pharaoh's hardness of heart ; I 
am the worker of that very hardness also, and I 
hold it in my own hands ; I who am your deliverer 
will use it with no other effect, than that it shall 
cause me to work many signs, and to declare 

9 <( Now I teH you before it come (Judas s treachery), that, 
when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am He." " And 
now I have told you before it come to pass (his going to the 
Father), that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe." 
" But these things have I told you (their own persecutions), 
that, when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told 
you of them." — (John xiii. 19. xiv. 29. xvi. 4.) 

r Exod. vii. 4. xi. 9. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 281 

my greatness, to the end that ye may believe in se. xvii. 
me/ 3 

Hence that saying, which Moses repeats after 
nearly every plague, " And the heart of Pharaoh- 
was hardened, that he did not let the people go, 
as the Lord had spoken." What is this saying, 
u As the Lord had spoken/' but that God might 
be seen to be true, who had declared beforehand 
that he should be hardened? If there had been 
any vertibility here, any freeness of will in Pha- 
raoh, such as had power to incline towards either 
side ; God could not with such certainty have 
foretold his induration — but since the Promiser 
here is one who can neither be mistaken, nor telJ 
a lie, it was necessarily and most assuredly to 
come to pass, that he should be hardened ; and 
this could not be, unless the induration were alto- 
gether without the limits of man's power, and 
stood only in the power of God : just as I have 
described it above ; to wit, God was certain that 
he should not omit the general exercise of his 
omnipotency in the person of Pharaoh, or because 
of Pharaoh ; seeing, it is what he even cannot 
omit. 

Furthermore, he was equally sure that the will 
of Pharaoh, naturally wicked and averse from 
Him, could not consent to the word and work of 
God winch was contrary to it ; so that, whereas 

s Luther circumscribes the design. Doubtless, God would 
comfort and encourage his people by these acts and predic- 
tions : but self-manifestation was His one ultimate object ; and 
in order to this, the confounding, and the rendering yet more 
inexcusable, of his enemies, as well as the emboldening of his 
beloved ones. — Was there not also a manifestation of what 
human nature is, hereby made in his own people ? Did they all 
believe, after all these signs ? Whence those hankerings after 
Egypt ? Whence those, " It had been better for us to have 
served the Egyptians ?" — The whole is resolvable into that 
great first principle, ' God shewing what he is, by his dealings 
with the human nature as exhibited both in the elect and in 
the reprobate — in his friends and in his enemies.' But what a 
maze, or rather what a mass of inconsistency, is this history, and 
not this history only but all the Bible, without that principle } 



282 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. the impulse to will was preserved inwardly in 
' Pharaoh by God's omnipotency, and a contradic- 
tory word and work of God was thrown to meet 
it from without/ nothing else could be the result, 
but a stumbling and a hardening of the heart> 
in Pharaoh. For, if God had omitted the acting 
of his omnipotency in Pharaoh at the moment 
when he threw the contradictory message of 
Moses into his path, and if Pharaoh's will be 
supposed to have acted itself alone, by its own 
power; then possibly there might have been 
ground for questioning to which of the two sides 
it would have inclined itself. But now, seeing 
that he is driven and hurried along to an act of 
willing — no violence, it is true, being done to his 
will, because he is not forced against his will; but 
a natural operation of God hurrying him away to 
a natural acting of his will, such an one as it is, 
and that is a bad one — it follows that he cannot 
but run foul u of the word, and by so doing be 
hardened. — Thus, we see that this text fights 
manfully against Freewill : inasmuch as God who 
promises cannot lie ; and if he does not lie, Pha- 
raoh's heart cannot but be hardened. 

I Occur su objecta.'] It is contrived that this word and work 
of God should come into contact with the edge of the will 
excited into action by omnipotency, through an act like that of 
throwing a bone to a dog, or casting a stumbling-block in the 
path of a traveller. 

II Imp'mgere.'] Imp. (se scilicet subaudito) est ' ire impac- 
tum,' c prsecipitem ferri in aliquid.' — Here, as before,, we have 
God's actuation, the man's will, and the trying, provoking dis- 
pensation. But there seems a little confusion in the admission 
concerning the man's (Pharaoh's) own will, as separated from 
the divine impulse. He seems now to make the crisis of the 
evil lie there. I can understand that there might be inertness 
in the case which he supposes : but if there be an act of will, 
in an essentialhj bad will, I cannot understand how it should be 
other than evil. (See above, note k .) — The case is merely 
hypothetical, put for the sake of illustration (but, like many 
other intended illustrations, confusing rather than distinguish- 
ing the object on which it would shine), and impossible : for 
God acts always, and therefore actuates the wicked always -, 
that is, keeps them in their place and state as moral agents—* 
which is a state of activity. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 283 

But let us look at Paul also, who adopts this se.xviii; 

passage from Moses in Rom. ix. How sadly is 

Diatribe tormented here ; she twists herself into J^ence'to 
all manner of shapes, to avoid losing Freewill, this pas- 
One while she says it is the necessity of a conse- ^age » 
quence, but not the necessity of a conseqzient. Diatribe 
One while it is an ordered will, or will signified/ hard put to 
which may be resisted ; whereas a will of good fj" ^! ed 
pleasure is that which cannot be resisted ! One 
while the passages adduced from Paul do not 
oppose Freewill, because they do not speak of the 
salvation of man. One while the foreknowledge 
of God presupposes x necessity; another while it 
does not. One while grace prevents the will- 
causing it to will — accompanies it on its way, 
and gives the happy issue. One while the first 
cause effects every thing; another while it acts 
by second causes, itself doing nothing. By these 
and such like mocking words, she only aims to 
get time, and to snatch the cause meanwhile out of 
our sight, and drag it some whither else. She 
gives us credit for being as stupid and heartless, 
or as little interested in the cause, as she herself 
is. Or as little children, when frightened or at 
play, cover their eyes with their hands, and think 
nobody sees them, because they see nobody; 
even so Diatribe, not being able to bear the rays, 
or rather the lightnings, of the clearest possible 
words, uses all sorts of pretences to make it ap- 
pear that she does not see the real truth; that 
she may persuade us, if possible, to cover our 
eyes, so as not even to see it ourselves. But all 
these are the marks of a convinced mind, which 

v Ordinaiam seu voluntatem signi.~\ The distinction amounts 
to that of f regulated' and ' absolute :' will limited and re- 
strained by ordinance, or by some outward sign which has 
revealed it ; and will of pure, uncontrolled good pleasure. The 
former of these, it is intimated, may be resisted j the latter 
cannot. 

x I understand ponit in a logical sense, i takes for granted j' 
assumes as a datum. 



284 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part IV. struggles rashly against invincible truth. That 

figment of the necessity of a consequence as 

differing from the necessity of a consequent, has 
been confuted already. (Part i. Sect, xi.) Let 
Diatribe invent and re-invent, cavil and re-cavil, 
as much as she pleases, if God foreknew that 
Judas would be a traitor, Judas necessarily be- 
came a traitor ; nor was it in the power of Judas, 
or of any creature, to do otherwise, or to change 
his will, though he did what he did by an act of 
willing, and not by compulsion. But to will that 
act was the operation of a substance which God 
put into motion by his own omnipotency, as he 
also does every thing else. For it stands as an 
invincible and self-evident proposition, that c God 
neither lies, nor is mistaken.' The words under 
oar consideration are not obscure or doubtful 
words, although all the learned of all ages may 
have been blind, so as to understand and inter- 
pret them otherwise. Prevaricate as much as 
you may, your own conscience, and that of all 
men, is compelled to acknowledge, if God be not 
mistaken in that which he foreknows, the very 
thing foreknown must necessarily take place. 
Else who could trust his promises, who would 
fear his threatenings, if what he promises or 
threatens do not necessarily follow? or, how 
can he promise or threaten, if his foreknowledge 
deceives him, or can be thwarted by our muta- 
bility? This excessive light of undoubted truth 
manifestly stops every mouth, puts an end to all 
questions, and decrees a victory in spite of all 
evasive subtilties. We know very well that the 
foreknowledge of man is beguiled. We know 
that an eclipse does not happen because it is 
foreknown, but is foreknown because it is going 
to happen. But what have we to do with this 
sort of foreknowledge ? we are arguing about 
the foreknowledge of God. Deny to this the 
necessity of the thing foreknown being effected, 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 385 

and you take away the faith and fear of God ; sec.xix. 

you throw down all God's promises and threaten- 

ings; nay, you deny the very being of God. — 
But even Diatribe herself, after a long struggle, 
in which she has tried all her arts, is at length 
compelled by the force of truth to make confession 
of our sentiment, and says; 

6 The question about the will and purpose of Diatribe's 
God is a more difficult one. For God wills the sionsTnd 
same things which he foreknows. And this is retractions 
what Paul subjoins; " Who resisteth his will, if ex P osed ' 
he pitieth whom he will, and hardeneth whom he 
will?" For if he were a king, he would do what 
he liked, so that no one should be able to resist 
him; he would be said to do what he would. 
Thus the will of God, as being the principal cause 
of ail events, seems to impose a necessity upon 
our will/ This is what she says. 

And I thank God that Diatribe has at last 
recovered her senses. What is become of Free- 
will now? But this eel slips again out of our 
hands, by saying in a moment ; 

1 But Paul does not resolve this question ; on 
the contrary, he chides the inquirer ; nay, but O 
man, who art thou that repliest against God?' 

O exquisite evasion ! Is this what you call hand- 
ling the word of God? to deliver a mere ipse dixit 
in this manner, by your own sole authority, of your 
own head, without producing testimonies of Scrip- 
ture, without working miracles? let me rather say, 
thus to corrupt some of the clearest words that God 
ever spake ? Paul does not resolve this question : 
what is he doing then? ' He chides the inquirer/ 
says she. Is not this chiding the most complete 
resolution of the question ? What was in fact 
asked in this question concerning the will of God ? 
Was it not asked whether he puts a necessity 
upon our will? Paul answers, that "Thus (that 
is, because he does so) he hath mercy (He says) 
on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he 



286 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. hardeneth. It is not of him that willeth, nor of him 
~ that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy "y 
Not content with having resolved the question, 
he moreover introduces those who, in opposition 
to this answer, murmur for Freewill — prating*, that 
neither is there any such thing as merit, neither 
are we condemned by any fault of our own ; and 
the like — for the very purpose of putting a stop 
to their indignation and murm urs ; saying, 

u Thou sayest then unto me, why doth he yet 
find fault ? For who shall resist his will ?" Do 
you notice the personification ? z They, upon hear- 
ing that the will of God imposes a necessity upon 
us, blasphemously murmur and say, c Why doth 
he yet find fault V that is, why doth God so press, 
so drive, so demand, so complain? why doth he 
accuse? why doth he condemn? as if we men 
could do what he demands, if we pleased. He 
has no just cause for this complaint — let him 
rather accuse his own will — 'there let him prefer 
his complaint — there let him press and drive. 
For who shall resist his will? who can obtain 
mercy, when he does not choose they should? 
who can melt himself, if it be his will to harden ? 
It does not lie with us to change His will, much 
less to resist it: that will chooses that we should 
be hardened ; by that will we are compelled to be 
hardened — whether we will or no. 

If Paul had not resolved this question, or had 

y Luther makes some confusion in the order of the verses, 
putting the 18th in the place of the 15th. But his argument 
is not dependent upon the transposition. The more explicit 
testimony of verse 18 is implied in verse 15 ; but verse 18 
precedes both the cavil and the reproof. 

z Prosopopoeia.'] c The introducing of imaginary persons:' 
literally, ( the making of persons { — a well-known figure of 
rhetoric. Paul had before been simply stating truth in plain 
language. Now he brings ifl a supposed objection. Luther 
asks Erasmus whether he notices this ? It was essential to his 
correct understanding of the passage, that he should have 
remarked this change in the Apostle's mode of address : that 
he does personify, and what sort of persons he fabricates. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 287 

not unequivocally determined that a necessity is sec.xix. 

imposed upon vis by the divine prescience, what 

need was there to introduce persons as murmur- 
ing and alleging that it is impossible to resist 
his will ? For who would murmur or be indig- 
nant, if he did not think that this necessity 
bad been determined? The words in which he 
speaks of resisting the will of God are not ob- 
scure. Is it doubtful what he means by c resisting,' 
or by 'will;' or c of whom' he speaks, when he 
speaks of the will of God? Let unnumbered 
thousands of the most approved doctors be blind 
here, and let them feign that Scripture is not 
clear, and let them be afraid of a difficult ques- 
tion. We have got some most clear words, of this 
import ; " He pitieth whom he will ; whom he will, 
he hardeneth." Also, iC Thou sayest to me there- 
fore, why doth he find fault ? who shall resist his 
will ?" 

Nor is it a difficult question ; nay, nothing can 
be plainer to common sense than that this conse- ■ 
quence is certain, solid and true : ' If God fore- 
knows an event, it necessarily comes to pass ;' 
when it has been presupposed, upon the testi- 
mony of Scripture, that God neither errs nor is 
deceived. 51 I confess that the question is a diffi- 
cult one — nay, one which it is impossible to re- 
solve — if you should in the same instant determine 
to maintain both God's foreknowledge and man's 
liberty. For what is more difficult, or rather more 
impossible, than to contend that contradictions 
and contraries are not at variance with each other; 
or that a number is at the same time ten and 
nine ? There is no difficulty in the question we 
are handling, but the difficulty is gone after and 

a Efrat.falliiur.~\ Err. a mistake in his own apprehensions. 
Fall, appearances beguile him. It is not disappointment as to 
the event, which is the subject of remark here ; but an ob- 
ject seen afar off made to appear different from what it really 



288 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



part iv. brought in, just as ambiguity and obscurity are 

gone after and introduced by violence into the 

Scriptures. — So then, he stops the mouths of those 
wicked ones who have been offended by those 
most plain words (and why offended, but be- 
cause they perceive that the divine will is ful- 
filled by means of our necessity, and because 
they perceive it to have been unequivocally deter- 
mined that there is nothing of liberty or of Free- 
will left to them, but that all things are depend- 
ent upon the will of God only) ; he stops their 
mouths I say, but it is by bidding them be still, 
and reverence the Majesty of the divine power 
and will, b over which we have no right of control, 
whilst it has full power over us, to do what 
seemeth it good : not that there is any injury done 
to us by its operations, since it owes us nothing ; 
having received nothing from us, and having pro- 
mised nothing to us but just so much as it chose 
and was pleased to do. 
SEC. xx. Here then is the place, here is the time, for 

adoring, not the fictitious inhabitants of those 

where Corycian caves, but the real f Majesty of God in 
ence'for 6 '" his 'fearful wonders, and in his incomprehensible 
the Scrip- judgments ; and for saying u Thy will be done, 
tures hes. ag m h eaven ^ so j n ear th." On the other hand, 
we are never more irreverent and rash, than when 
we attempt and accuse these very mysteries and 
judgments, which are unsearchable. Meanwhile, 
we imagine that we are exercising an incredible 
degree of reverence in searching the holy Scrip- 
tures. Those Scriptures, which God has com- 
manded us to search, we do not search in one 
direction; but in another, in which he has for- 
bidden us to search them, we do nothing but 



b Majestatem.'] A form of expression common amongst men, 
with application to earthly potentates. ' His Majesty ' does 
so and so. It is a sort of personification of the sovereign's 
state, power, and excellency. So here, of God's power and 
will. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 289 

search them with a perpetual temerity, not to say sec. xx. 

blasphemy. Is it not such a search, when we 

rashly endeavour to make that most free fore- 
knowledge of God accord with our liberty ; and 
are ready to detract from the prescience of God if 
it do not leave us in possession of liberty ; 01% if 
it induce necessity, to say with the murmurers 
and blasphemers, ' Why doth he yet find fault? 
who shall resist his will? what is become of the 
most merciful God ? what is become of Him 
who willeth not the death of a sinner? Has 
he made us that he might delight himself with 
man's torments V and the like ; which shall be 
howled out for ever amongst the devils and the 
damned ? 

But even natural reason is obliged to confess, 
that the living and true God must be such an one 
as to impose necessity upon us, seeing he himself 
is free : as for instance, that he would be a 
ridiculous God, or more properly an idol, if he 
should either foresee future things doubtfully, or 
be disappointed by events ; when even the Gen- 
tiles have assigned irresistible fate to their gods. a 
He would be equally ridiculous, if he had not 
power to do ail things, and did not effect all 
things ; or if any thing be really brought to pass 
without him. Now if the foreknowledge and 
omnipotency of God be conceded, it follows natu- 
rally, by an undeniable consequence, that we were 
not made by ourselves, neither do we live by 
ourselves, neither do we perform any thing by 
ourselves, but all through His omnipotency. And 
now, since he both knew beforehand that we 
should be such a sort of people, and goes on to 
make us such, and to move and govern us as 
such ; what can be imagined in us, pray, that is 

c Fatum in-eluctabile.~\ Even those, who made the fatal sis- 
ters superior to Jupiter himself, still had an uncontrolled 
ordainer of events j inexorable, infallible, invincible fate. 

U 



290 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. free to have a different issue given to it from that 

which he foreknew, or is now effecting? 

So that God's foreknowledge and omnipotency 
are diametrically opposite to man's Freewill. For 
either God will be mistaken in his foreknowledge, 
and disappointed in his actings (which is impos- 
sible), or we shall act, and act according to his fore- 
knowledge and agency. By the omnipotency of 
God, I mean not a power by which he might do many 
things which he does not; but that acting omni- 
potency, by which he doeth all things, with power, 
in all things : it is after this manner, that the 
Scripture calls him omnipotent. This omnipo- 
tency and prescience of God, I say, absolutely 
abolishes the dogma of Freewill. Nor can the 
obscurity of Scripture, or the difficulty of the 
subject, be made a pretext d here. The words are 
most clear, even children know them: the subject 
matter is plain and easy; one which approves 
itself even to the natural judgment of common 
sense : so that, let your series of ages, times and 
persons, who write and teach otherwise, be never 
so great, it profiteth you nothing. 
sec.xxi. This common sense, or natural reason, is most 

highly offended forsooth, that God should leave 

mOrauon men > snoa ^ harden them, should damn them, of 
hates. his own sheer will; as if he were delighted with 

the sins and torments of the wretched, which are 
so great and eternal : whereas he is declared to be 
a God of so great mercy and goodness. It has 
been deemed unjust, cruel and insufferable to 
entertain such a sentiment concerning God ; with 
which so many, and those such great men, during 
so many ages, have also been offended. — And 
who would not be offended ? I myself have been 

d PrcEiexi.'] Properly, ' a fine web of art spread before a sub- 
stance to cover, or disguise it.' — Judicium naturale, like ratio 
nataralis above, opposes e natural' to ' spiritual.' The conclu- 
sions are so obvious, that we need not the Spirit to draw them. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED, 291 

offended at it, more than once, to the very depth, sec.xxi 

and lowest depth of despair, so as to wish that I — 

had never been created a man : until I learned 
how salutary that despair was, and how near of 
kin to grace. Hence ail this toil and sweat in 
putting forward f the goodness of God, and accus- 
ing the will of man: here lay the discovery of 
those distinctions between God's regulated and 
absolute will, between the necessity of a conse- 
quence and of a consequent, and much of like 
kind ; which have produced no result however, 
save that the ignorant have been imposed upon 
by u vain babblings, and by oppositions of science 
falsely so called/' 5 Still there has always re- 
mained this sting infixed in the deep of their 
hearts, both to the learned and to the unlearned, 
if ever they have come to be serious; that they 
could not believe the prescience and omnipotency 
of God without perceiving our necessity. 

Even natural reason, though offended by this 
necessity, and making such vast efforts to remove 
it, is compelled to admit its existence, through 
the conviction of her own private judgment; which 
would be the same, even if there were no Scrip- 

e Abyssum.~] ' Abijssus est profunditas aquarum impenetrabilis, 
sive speluncss aquarum latentium, de quibus fontes et flumina 
procedunt, vel quce oceulte subtereant/ Hence applied to c the 
abyss.' " They besought him that he would not command 
them to go out into the abyss." (Gr.) " Art thou come hither 
to torment us before the time ?" — Luther had felt the very hell 
of despair. 

' And in the lowest deep, 
A lower deep still threatening to devour me 
Opens wide.' 

f Pro excusandd bonitate Dei.~\ Excus. ' Item, in excusa- 
tionem affero.' — For regulated and absolute will see above, 
Sect. xix. where he distinguishes these as voluni. ordin. scu signi, 
and volunt. placiii. — For consequence and consequent, see Part i. 
Sect xi. 

s 1 Tim. vi. 20. avnOcaeis. c Boctrina opposita,' c qusestio 
quae ad disceptandum proponitur.' — Not what is commonly un- 
derstood by opposition ; but men setting out to canvass doc- 
trines with a great display of school-learning, and maintaining 
theses which were opposite to the truth. 

u2 



292 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part IV. ture. For all find this sentiment written in their 

hearts, so as to recognise and approve it, even 

against their will, when they hear it discussed : 
first, that God is omnipotent, not only in what he 
is able to do, but also in what he actually does, 
as I have said ; h else he would be a ridiculous 
God : secondly, that he knows and foreknows all 
things, and can neither mistake, nor be misled. 
These two things being conceded through the 
testimony of their heart and senses, by and by 
they are compelled to admit by an inevitable 
consequence, that we were not made by our own 
will, but by necessity; and hence, that we do not 
any thing in right of Freewill, but just as God 
hath foreknown and doth direct us, by a counsel 
and an energy which is at once infallible and 
immutable. So then, we find it written at once 
in all hearts that there is no such thing as Free- 
will : although this writing be obscured, through 
the circumstance of so many contrary disputa- 
tions, and so many persons of such vast authority 
having, for so many ages, taught differently. Just 
as every other law, which (according to Paul's 
testimony) has been written in our hearts, is 
recognised when rightly handled, but obscured, 
when distorted by ungodly teachers and laid hold 
of by other opinions. 1 
sc. xxii. I return to Paul. Now, if he be not solving 
this question, and concluding human necessity 
from the prescience and will of God, what need 



Paul's ai 
£iiment 



h See above, Sect. xx. 

i Paul's testimony can only respect the fact that a law may 
be written in our hearts, which is not outwardly taught and 
professed : for it is neither the same law, of which Paul 
speaks ; neither does he testify any thing about the handling", 
or about the recognition of that law. (Rom. ii. 13 — 16'.; — 
Luther supposes this law of necessity to lie at the bottom of 
our hearts, so that, when we hear it duly and truly set out, we 
by the exercise of our natural powers accord with it ; whilst 
it may be made illegible, and effaced, by false teaching and 
prejudice. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 293 

has he to introduce the simile of the potter sc. xxn. 

making, out of one and the same lump, one vessel 

to honour and another to dishonour? Yet the resumed, 
thing made doth not say to its maker tf why hast dishonest 
thou made me thus V It is men that he is and cow- 
speaking of: whom he compares to clay, and ^JiT 
God to the potter. There is no meaning in the escape, but 
comparison ; nay, it is absurd and adduced to cannot - 
no purpose, if he do not mean that our liberty is 
nothing. Nay, PauPs whole argument in support 
of grace is abortive. The very scope of his 
whole Epistle is to shew that we can do nothing, 
yea even then, when we seem to be doing good ; 
as he saith in the same place, c how that Israel, 
by following after righteousness, hath not how- 
ever attained to righteousness; but the Gentiles, 
which followed not, have attained to it:'* of 
which I shall speak more at large when I produce 
my own forces. 

But Diatribe, disguising the whole body of 
PauPs argument, together with its scope, consoles 
herself meanwhile with garbled and corrupted 
words. 1 It is nothing to Diatribe, that Paul after- 
Avards, in Rom. xi. exhorts them, on the other 
hand; saying, " Thou standest by faith ; see that 
thou art not lifted up." And again : " They also, 
if they believe, shall be grafted in," &c. He says 
nothing there about the powers of man ; but uses 
imperative and conjunctive verbs, the effect of 
which has been sufficiently declared already." 1 

k Rom. ix. 30. — I have not marked the words as a Scripture 
quotation,, because they are not exact. He says in the same 
place : the intervening verses are all dependent upon verse 24, 
being so many quotations to shew., that it was God's avowed 
purpose to call a body of Gentiles into his church, and to save 
only a remnant of Israel. 

1 Excisis et depravaiis.~] Exc. words { cut out ' from the text, 
in which they stand connected with others. Depr. ( turned 
awry/ f made crooked/ their meaning, through this violent 
separation, distorted and polluted. 

m See above, Part iii. Sect, xxxiv. 



294 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. Nay, Paul himself, in the very same place, as if 

to prevent the vaunters of Freewill, does not say 

that they can believe ; but, " God is able to graff 
them in/' says he. — To be short, Diatribe proceeds 
with so trembling and hesitating a step in handling 
these texts from Paul's writings, that she seems, 
in conscience, to dissent from even her own words. 
For, in those places where she ought most of all 
to have gone on and proved her doctrine, she 
almost always breaks off the discourse with a — 
? But enough of this ;' or, c I will not investigate 
this point now f or, ' It is no part of this subject/ 
or, * They would say so and so ;' and many like 
expression s. n Thus she leaves the matter in the 
midst, making it doubtful whether she would 
rather seem to be standing up as a champion 
for Freewill, or only to be shewing her skill in 
parrying off Paul with vain words. All this she 
does after a law and manner of her own ; as one 
who is not in earnest whilst pleading this cause. 
But we ought not to be thus indifferent ; thus to 
skim the ears of corn; thus to be shaken like a 
reed with the winds : but, first to assert con- 
fidently, steadfastly, fervently; and then to de- 
monstrate by solid, apposite, and abundant proof 
the doctrine we maintain. 15 

Then again, how exquisitely does she contrive 
to preserve liberty in union with necessity, when 
she says, Nor does every sort of necessity exclude 
freedom of will. As for instance, God the Father 
necessarily begets the Son; but he begets him 
willingly and freefy, inasmuch as he is not com- 
pelled to beget him. Are we disputing now, 

n Excutiam. instituti.'] Excut. c concutere, scrutandi et explo- 
randi causa.' Inst. e scopus, propositum, inceptum.' irpoaipeai'i' 

° Pro libero arbltrio dicer e. Eludere Paulum. 

p Super aristas incedere."] See above, Part iii. Sect. vi. note b . 
( Certo opposed to ( hesitatingly ;' constayiter, to ' variableness 
of statement ;' ardenter, to 'Indifference y solide, to 'insub- 
stantial;' dextre, to a f clumsiness, and want of address;' 
copiose, to ' scantiness of materials.' 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 295 

pray, about compulsion and force ? Have I not sc. xxn. 

in all my writings testified, that I speak of a 

necessity of immutability ? q I know that the 
Father willingly begets; I know that Judas be- 
trayed Christ through an act of his will. But I 
affirm that this will was about to be in this very 
Judas, certainly and infallibly, if God foreknew it. 
If what I affirm be not yet sufficiently understood, 
6 let us refer one sort of necessity — that of vio- 
lence — to the work; another sort of necessity — 
that of infallibility — to the time/ Let him who 
hears me understand me to speak of the latter of 
these two necessities, not of the former ; that is, 
I am not discussing whether Judas became a 
traitor willingly or unwillingly, but, whether at 
the time fore-appointed of God it must not infal- 
libly come to pass, that Judas, by an act of his 
own will, betrays Christ, 

But see what Diatribe says here : c If you 
look at the infallible foreknowledge of God, Judas 
was necessarily to become a traitor; but Judas 
might have changed his will.' Do you even know 
what you are saying, my Diatribe? To omit, 
what has been already proved, that the will can 
but choose evil; how could Judas change his will 
in consistency with the infallible foreknowledge 
of God ? could he change the foreknowledge of 
God, and make it fallible ? Here Diatribe gives 
in, deserts her standard, throws away her arms, 
and flies; referring the discussion, as none of hers, 
to those scholastic subtilties which distinguish 
between the necessity of a consequence and the 
necessity of a consequent: 1 " a sort of quibble 

i See above. Part iii. Sect, xxxvii. note h . 

r In consistency with what has been said before (Part i. 
Sect, xi.), but with a minute variety in the application, Judas's 
treachery, they would say, was necessary, but he was not 
a necessary traitor : he must betray, but not therefore ne- 
cessarily ; that is, according to their account of the matter, 
compulsorily. 



296 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. which she has no mind to pursue. It is very 

prudent in you doubtless, after having conducted 

your cause all the way into the midst of a crowded 
court 8 — when now a pleader is most of all neces- 
sary — to turn your back, and leave the business of 
replying and defining* to others. You should 
have acted this counsel from the first, and 
abstained from writing altogether; according to 
that saying, c The man who knows not how to 
contend abstains from the weapons of the field/" 
It was not expected of Erasmus, that he should 
remove v that difficulty, e how God with certainty 
foreknows, yet our actions are contingent/ This 
difficulty was in the world long before Diatribe's 
time. But it was expected that he should reply 
and define. However, being himself a rheto- 
rician, whilst we know nothing about it, he calls 
in a rhetorical transition to his aid, and — carrying 
us ignoramuses along with him, as if the matter 
in debate were one of no moment, and the whole 
discussion were mere quirk and quibble, — dashes 
violently out of the midst of the crowd, wearing 
his crown of ivy and laurel. x 

s The ' mediae turbas' are the multitudes surrounding the 
judicial tribunal : c non usitata frequentid stipati sumus.' — Cic. 
' Perduxeris ' expresses the pomp and the labour with which 
he had dragged on the cause to issue. 

t Respondendi et definiendi.'] Resp. has respect to the adver- 
sary's argument, which should be invalidated or taken off: 
defin. is the explanatory statement of the advocate's own case. 
See above, Part i. Sect. ix. 

u Hor. Art. Poet. v. 379. 

v Moveret.~\ There is a peculiar force, if I mistake not, hi 
( moveret :' he does not say ( remove,' though I have ventured, 
with good authority, to give it that force ; rather, it is a heavy 
body which he cannot f wag.' 

x Luther thus ridicules his claim to skill and victory. In 
many sorts of competition, and for many sorts of merit, it was 
customary to crown the conquerors with various materials — 
sometimes precious, sometimes of no value — as the highest 
tribute of honour which could be received. Here therefore 
he represents Erasmus as crowning himself; by a feint of rhe- 
toric abandoning his cause, and assuming to be a conquering 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 297 

But you have not gained your end by this sect. 
stratagem, brother ! There is no skill in rhetoric XXIIL 
so great as to be able to deceive a sincere con- 
science: the sting of conscience is mightier than 
eloquence with all her powers and figures. We 
shall not suffer the rhetorician to pass on here to 
another topic, that he may hide himself: it is not 
the place for this exhibition. The hiuge of the 
several matters in dispute, and the head of the 
cause is attacked here: it is here that Freewill 
is either extinguished, or shall gain a complete 
triumph. But instead of meeting this crisis, no 
sooner do you perceive your danger, or rather 
perceive that the victory over Freewill is sure ; 
than you pretend to see nothing but metaphysical 
subtilties in the question. Is this acting the part 
of a trusty theologian? Are you serious in the 
cause ? How comes it then, that you both leave 
your hearers in suspense, and the discussion in a 
state of confusion and exasperation/ Still how- 
ever, you would be thought to have done your 
work very honourably, and would seem to have 
carried off the palm. Such cunning and wili- 
ness z may be endurable in profane causes; but in 
theology, where simple and undisguised truth is 
the object of pursuit — that souls may be saved — 
it is most hateful and intolerable. 

The Sophists also have felt the invincible and Much joy 
insupportable force of this argument ; and have ^hlstl and 
therefore feigned this distinction between the Diatribe in 

Bacchus, and an unrivalled Apollo, by wearing the emblems 
of those divinities. 

y Perturbatum et exasperatum.~\ Perturb, implies want of order 
and distinctness ; no first, second, and third, either in reply 
or advancement : exasp. the heat and ruffle with which it is 
maintained $ we speak of f angry' debate. 

z Vafritia et versutia.'] Vaf. expresses the subtile invention 
which devises ; versut. the versatility and adroitness with which 
the crafty counsel is executed : opposed afterwards by simplex, 
f what is inartificial y and aperta, ( what is manifest to the 



298 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. necessity of a consequence and of a consequent : 

«-* but how fruitless this distinction is, has been 

their ne- snewn already.* They also, like yourself, are not 
Tconse- aware what they say, and how much they admit 
quent. against themselves. For, if you allow the neces- 
sity of a consequence, Freewill is vanquished and 
laid prostrate, and is nothing aided by the conse- 
quent's being either necessary or contingent. 
What is it to me, that Freewill does what she 
does willingly and not by compulsion? it is enough 
for me that you concede, f it must necessarily be 
that Judas do willingly what he does ; and that 
the event cannot be otherwise, if God hath so 
foreknown it 9 If God foreknows that Judas will 
betray the Lord, or that he will change his will to 
betray him ; whether of the twain he shall have 
foreknown? rwill necessarily come to pass : else 
God will be mistaken in his forekno wings and 
foretellings ; which is impossible. The necessity 
of the consequence effects this ; if God foreknows 
an event, that very event necessarily happens. 
In other words, Freewill is a nothing. This 
necessity of the consequence is neither ob- 
scure, nor ambiguous : if the great doctors in all 
ages have even been blind, they must still be 
obliged to admit its existence, since it is so mani- 
fest and so certain as to be palpable. b 

But the necessity of the consequent, with which 
they comfort themselves, is a mere phantom, and 
fights, as the saying is, diametrically with the ne- 
cessity of the consequence. For example ; it is 
the necessity of a consequence, if I say ' God 
foreknows that Judas will be a traitor ; therefore 
it will certainly and infallibly come to pass, that 
Judas is a traitor/ In opposition to this neces- 

a See above, note r . 

b Palpari."] ' What you may stroke with the hand.' The 
gentlemen which have no eyes may still receive sense-testi- 
mony to it. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 299 

sity of the consequence^ you console yourself in sect. 
this way : But since Judas may change his will to xxiv. 
betray; therefore there is no necessity in the con- "'""" 
sequent. I demand of you, how these two asser- 
tions agree with each other : < Judas may not be 
willing to betray ;' and f it is necessary, that 
Judas be willing to betray/ Do they not directly 
contradict and fight against each other ? ' He 
shall not be compelled (say you) to betray, against 
his will/ — What is this to the purpose? You 
have been affirming something about the necessity 
of a consequent; that it is not rendered necessary, 
forsooth, by the necessity of the consequence; 
but you have affirmed nothing about the compul- 
sion of the consequent. Your answer ought to 
have been touching the necessity of the conse- 
quent; and you produce an example which shews 
compulsion in the consequence. I ask one ques- 
tion and you reply to another. All this is the 
produce of that half asleep half awake state of 
mind, in which you do not perceive how perfectly 
inefficient that device is, the necessity of a con- 
sequent. 

So much for the first of the two passages ; d The other 
which respects the induration of Pharaoh, and admitted 

1 7 text de- 

c Commentum.~] The subtilty means ' Judas has still a will, 
which is not forced ; therefore there is Freewill still.' — Who 
says ' forced?' But can it choose otherwise? A will, that 
can only make one choice, is in bondage. — The example of 
Judas is introduced by Erasmus, not Luther. 

d See Part iv. Sect. i. — The course of this long, elaborate, 
and invincible argument may be traced by the side notes 
attached to each section ; but the reader will forgive me if I 
endeavour to assist him by the following short summary. 
Erasmus endeavours to evade this plain text by a trope. 
1. Tropical interpretations are generally inadmissible. % Ab- 
surdity of the proposed one. 3. It does not remove the diffi- 
culty. 4. Certain illustrations objected to. 5. The causes 
assigned for introducing it examined. 6. How God hardens ex- 
plained. 7. Diatribe exposed, and Luther's view maintained by 
an appeal to the context. Also, by an appeal to Paul's comment ; 
which introduces Erasmus's evasion and that of the Sophists. — 
In the course of these considerations several topics are ad- 



300 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. involves all the texts of like kind, amounting to 

a phalanx — and that an invincible one. Let us 

now examine the second, about Jacob and Esau ; 
of whom, when not yet born, it was said " The 
elder shall serve the younger." Diatribe evades 
this passage by saying, c It has nothing properly 
to do with the subject of man's salvation. God 
may will that a man be a servant or a poor man, 
whether the man will or no, without his being 
rejected from eternal salvation/ 
Nothing S ee how many side-paths and holes of escape a 

salvation, slippery mind seeks after, which is intent upon 
So' Jerome flying away from truth; but still she does not 
had said. q U ite accomplish her flight. Let us suppose, if 
you will, that this text does not appertain to 
man's salvation (of which I shall speak hereafter), 
is it to no purpose then, that Paul adduces it? 
Shall we make Paul ridiculous, or absurd, in the 
midst of so serious a discussion ? Howbeit, this is a 
fancy of Jerome's; who, with abundant arrogance 
on his brow, whilst he is committing sacrilege 
with his mouth, has the audacity in more places 
than one to affirm, that those Scriptures which 
oppose in Paul, do not oppose in their proper 
places, from which he quotes them. What is this 
but to say, that, in laying the foundations of 
christian doctrine, Paul does but corrupt the 
divine Scriptures, and beguile the souls of the 
faithful, by a sentiment which is the coinage of 
his own brain, and which is intruded upon the 
Scriptures by violence ? Such is the honour, 
which the Spirit ought to receive, in the person of 
that holy and choice instrument of God, Paul ! 
Now, whereas Jerome ought to be read with 
judgment, and this saying of his to be classed 

mitted by the way : such as the state of man, limits of inquiry, 
carnal reason's objections, &c. . . . 

e Pugnant.~\ Said with reference to some particular doctrine 
not named — the doctrine of Freewill doubtless, as maintained 
by Jerome and those who teach like him. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 301 

amongst the many which that gentleman (through sect. 
his listlessness in studying, and his d illness in XXY ' 
understanding Scripture) has written impiously; 
Diatribe snaps up this very saying without 
any judgment, and does not deign to mitigate 
it, as she might at least do, with a gloss of some 
sort, but both judges and qualifies the Scriptures 
by this saying, as an oracle which precludes all 
doubt. Thus it is, that we take the ungodly say- 
ings of men as so many rules and measures for 
interpreting the divine word: and can we any 
longer wonder that it has become ambiguous and 
obscure, and that so many of the Fathers are 
blind to its real meaning, when it is thus made 
impious and profane ? 

Let him be anathema therefore who shall say, p au i de- 
* those words do not oppose the doctrine in their fended in 
original places, which do oppose as quoted by gL?xxv. 
Paul/ This is said, but not proved ; and is said 21—23. 
by those, who neither understand Paul nor the ^edfy 
passages cited by him, but deceive themselves by supposing 
taking the words in their own sense ; that is, an the service 
impious one. For although this text in particular 
(Gen. xxv. 21 — 23.) were meant of temporal ser- 
vitude 1 only (which is not true); still it is rightly 
and efficaciously quoted by Paul to prove, that, 
not for the merits of Jacob or of Esau, but through 
him that calleth, it was said to Sarah 8 " The 

f What is, in fact, gained by this distinction ? The prin- 
ciple is the same ; ' God of his sovereign will putting a differ- 
ence.' — Just so it is, with respect to national and personal elec- 
tion. Yet some seem to think that they have hooked a great 
fish, in discovering, that Great Britain may have been elected to 
hear the Gospel without any of her children having been 
elected to receive it ! 

s Sarah.'] Clearly, it should be Rebekah. Sarah was dead 
when this prophecy was delivered, which is expressly said to 
have been delivered to Rebekah. " And she (Rebekah) said, 
If it be so, &c. And the Lord said unto her." Gen. xxv. 22, 23. 
The preceding mention of Sarah in Rom. ix. accounts for the 
mistake. 



302 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. elder shall serve the younger." — Paul's question 

is, whether they attained to what is said of them 

by the virtue or merits of Freewill • and he 
proves that, not by the virtue or merits of Free- 
will, but only by the grace of him that called 
him, Jacob attained to what Esau did not. This 
he proves by invincible words of Scripture : such 
as, that they were not yet born ; and again, that 
they had done neither good nor evil. The weight 
of the matter lies in this proof ; this is the point 
under debate. But Diatribe, through her ex- 
quisite skill in rhetoric, passing over and dis- 
guising all these things, does not at all debate the 
question of merits (although she had undertaken 
to do so, and although Paul's handling of the 
subject requires it), but quibbles about tem- 
poral servitude (as if this were any thing to 
the purpose) ; only that she may appear not to 
be conquered by those most mighty words of 
Paul. For what could she have to yelp out 
against Paul, in support of Freewill ? what 
profit was there of Freewill to Jacob ? what 
hurt of the same to Esau ? when it had been 
settled by the foreknowledge and ordination of 
God what sort of a lot each of them should re- 
ceive : namely, that the one should serve, and the 
other should rule ; when as yet neither of them 
was born, or had done any thing. The rewards, 
which each shall receive, are decreed before the 
workmen are born, and have begun to work. It 
is to this point, that Diatribe ought to have 
directed her reply. This is what Paul insists 
upon, that they had done nothing good or evil 
as yet,* but still the one is ordained to be the 
master and the other the servant, by a divine judg- 
ment. The question is not, whether this ser- 
vitude have respect to eternal salvation, but by 
what merit this servitude is imposed upon a man 
who has not merited any thing. But it is most 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 303 

irksome to maintain a conflict with these depraved 11 SECT, 
endeavours to torture and elude Scripture. 



Howbeit, that Moses is not treating of their Theservice 
temporal servitude and dominion only, and that is not 
Paul is right in this also, that he understands him ^fbut*" 
to speak with reference to their eternal salvation spiritual, 
(although this be not so important to the point in 
hand, I will not however suffer Paul to be defiled 
with the calumnies of sacrilegious men 1 ), is 
proved from the text itself. The divine answer k 
given to Rebekah in the book of Moses is, " Two 
manner of people shall be separated from thy 
womb ; and the one people shall overcome 
the other people, and the elder shall serve the 
younger." Here two sorts of people are mani- 
festly distinguished from each other. The one 
is received into the free favour of God, although 
the younger, so as to overcome the elder ; not by 
strength, it is true, but through God's befriending 
him. How else should the younger conquer the 
elder, except God were with him? Now, since 
the younger is about to become the people of 

h Pravis.'] Nearly allied in meaning to the torquendce Scrip- 
ture which follows ; ' what is crooked and awry.' — No objec- 
tion, it is obvious, can be drawn from the statement in this 
paragraph, and from St. Paul's argument, to what has been 
advanced in a former note (see above, Sect. x. note z .) on the 
subject of original sin. The question is about the difference 
between Jacob and Esau. Both alike fallen and self-destroyed 
in Adam, the question is how either of these receives dis- 
tinguishing benefits, whether of a temporal or eternal nature. 
With respect to manifest existence and distinct personal 
agency, neither of them, it is plain, had done good or evil, 
when the words were spoken to Rebekah. That which alone 
could constitute any difference on a ground of Freewill or 
merit, there had as yet been no opportunity of displaying-. 

1 See last section. The question of Freewill is not affected. 
Erasmus follows Jerome, whom Luther has pronounced sacri- 
legious. 

k OraculumJ] It is said of Rebekah, that cc she went to in- 
quire of the Lord." Oraculum therefore, c an answer, counsel, 
or sentence from the Gods,' is the fit term by which to charac- 
terise what was said to her. 



304 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part IV. God, 1 it is not only external dominion or ser- 

-^ vitude, that is treated of here, but every thing 

which appertaineth to the people of God ; that 
is, the blessing of God, the word, the Spirit, the 
promise of Christ, and the eternal kingdom : 
which is even yet more largely confirmed by the 
Scripture afterwards, where it describes Jacob 
as being blessed, and as receiving the promises 
and the kingdom. Paul intimates these several 
things briefly, when he says, " the elder shall 
serve the younger i" sending us back to Moses, 
as one who treats them more at large. So that, 
in opposition to the sacrilegious"' comment of 
Jerome and Diatribe, you may say, that all the 
passages which Paul adduces fight yet more 
stoutly against Freewill in their original places, 
than in his writings. A remark which holds 
good, not only with respect to Paul, but with re- 
spect to all the Apostles ; who quote the Scrip- 
tures as witnesses to, and assertors of their doc- 
trine. Would not it be ridiculous to quote as a 
testimony, that which testifies nothing, and does 
not bear upon the question ? If those be accounted 
ridiculous amongst philosophers, who prove an 
unknown thing by one yet more unknown, or by 
an argument which is foreign to the subject; 
with what face shall we ascribe this absur- 
dity to the chief leaders and authors of the doc- 
trine of Christ ; on which the salvation of souls 
depends ? especially in those parts of their writ- 
ings in which they treat of the main articles of the 

1 Isaac's descendants in the line of Jacob were not only to 
be the typical family — the community which shadowed out the 
Lord's elect church — but also to be the visible church for a 
season, and to contain within them the true seed : so that all 
the spiritual blessings of God were comprehended in this supe- 
riority which is announced as the portion of Jacob. 

m Sacrilegam.'] ' Qui sacra legit,'' i. e. furatur. Thus, sacri- 
lege is beautifully defined by Johnson to be f the crime of 
robbing heaven.' Jerome and those who followed him were 
guilty of this. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 305 

faith. But such insinuations become those, who have sect. 
no real reverence for the divine Scriptures ? n 



That saying of Malachi's which Paul annexes, Diatribe's 
" Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," evasions 
she tortures by three distinct productions of her ofMaiac.i. 
industry. The first is, ' If you insist upon the £ by a 
letter/ God does not love as we love ; nor does trope put 
he hate any man : since God is not subject to nove. 
affections of this kind/ 

What is it I hear? Is it not made the ques- 
tion, how God loves and hates ; instead of why 
he loves and hates ? By what merit of ours he 
loves or hates, is the question. We know very 
well, that God does not hate or love, as we do ; 
since we both love and hate mutably; but he 
loves and hates according to his eternal and im- 
mutable nature : so far is he from being the sub- 
ject of accident and affection. And it is this very 
thing which compels Freewill to be a mere no- 
thing ; namely, that the love of God towards men 
is eternal and immutable, and his hatred towards 
them eternal ; not only prior to the merit and 
operation of Freewill, but even to the very mak- 
ing of the world; and that every thing is wrought 
in us necessarily, according to his having either 
loved us or not loved us, from eternity: insomuch 
that not only the love of God, but even his manner 
of loving, brings necessity upon us. — See here 

n Qui sacris scripturis serib non qfficiuntur."] Luther has a 
peculiar use of the word officio, or rather afficior, which I recog- 
nise here — c affected to' — denoting a mind interested in, 
having its affections excited towards an object. 

° Triplici industrid torquet.~\ A peculiar use of the word 
industrid — which commonly denotes c a state, or act, of mind' — 
to express ( the result of that act ; ' and this in an unfavour- 
able sense : f a laboured excogitation, in which there is neither 
genius, nor the Spirit.' (See above, Sect.- v. note 2 .) 

p Si literam urgeas.~\ By way of forcing a tropical inter- 
pretation of the text, she intimates that the literal cannot pos- 
sibly stand. ' If you drive the letter $' that is, force us to take 
it whether we will or no. 



306 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



part iv. what Diatribe's attempts at escape have profited 

her; every where she but runs aground the more, 

the more she strives to slip away: so unsuc- 
cessful a thing is it to struggle against truth. 
But let your trope be allowed: let the love of 
God be the effect of love, and the hatred of God 
the effect of hatred ; are these effects wrought 
without, or beside, q the will of God? Will you 
also say here, God doth not will as we do ; neither 
is he subject to the affection of willing ? If these 
effects take place then, they take place only when 
he wills : and what he wills, that he either loves 
or hates. Tell me then, by what merit on their 
part severally, Jacob is loved and Esau is hated 
before they are born and perform any act? It 
appears therefore, that Paul doth most excellently 
introduce Malachi to support the sentiment of 
Moses (namely, that God called Jacob before he 
was born, because he loved him, and not because 
he was loved before by Jacob, or because he was 
moved by any merit of his to do so); that it might 
be shewn in the case of Jacob and Esau, what 
our Freewill can do. r 

The second of these laboured excogitations is, 
'that Malachi seems not to be speaking of the 
hatred by which we are eternally damned, but of 
a temporary affliction. It is a reprehension of 
those who would build up Eclom.' 

Here is a second word of reproach for Paul, 
as doing violence to Scripture : so entirely do we 
cast off our reverence for the majesty of the Holy 
Spirit, if we may but establish our own conclu- 



SECT. 
XXVIII. 

Malachi 
speaks of 
temporal 
affliction. 



9 Citra et prater.] More literally,, f on this side and beyond :' 
implying therefore that they are altogether of him and through 
him. and to him. 

r Erasmus says it is not love and hate, but the effect of these. 
Luther replies, if effect, it is God's will that effects, and the 
effect is what he approves : he approves one sort of event to 
Jacob therefore, and another to Esau.— How much forwarder 
are you ? 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 307 

sions. But we will bear this insult for a while, sect. 

WVITT 

and see what good it does. Malachi speaks of ^ 

temporal affliction. What comes of this ? or 
what is this to the point in hand ? Paul is prov- 
ing from Malachi that this affliction was brought 
upon Esau without any merit of his, by the mere 
hatred of God ; that he may conclude Freewill to 
be nothing. Here it is you are pressed : to this 
point you ought to direct 3^0 ur answer. We are 
disputing about merit, you speak of reward ; and 
in such a way as not however to elude what you 
was meaning to elude : nay, in even speaking of 
reward you acknowledge merit. 5 But you pre- 
tend that you do not see this. Tell me then, what 
was the cause in the divine mind for loving Jacob 
and hating Esau, when they were not yet in 
being. — Again ; it is false, that Malachi speaks 
only of temporary affliction ; nor is his business 
with the destruction of Edom : you pervert the 
whole meaning of the Prophet by this laboured 
subtilty. The Prophet makes it quite plain what 
he means, by using the clearest terms : his mean- 
ing is to upbraid the Israelites with their ingra- 
titude, because, whilst he has been loving them, 
they in return are neither loving him as a father, 
nor fearing him as a master. The fact of his 
having loved them he proves both by Scripture 
and by actual performance. For instance, although 
Jacob and Esau were brothers, as Moses writes 
in Gen. xxv. he had however loved and chosen 
Jacob before he was born (as we have just shewn), 

s To make this text consist with Freewill, there must be 
ground of love and of hate in the personal mind and conduct of 
the two persons. — What follows is a master's view of Malachi's 
prophecy, and decisive as to the question. Judah's reproach is 
that he has been freely, distinguishing^ loved, and has been 
so treacherous. The essence of the reproach is the freeness of 
the love : and what is this temporality, which extends from 
generation to generation, and which comprehends as its cen- 
tral portion ' the eternal God had/ in opposition to ' not Jiad, 
but had for an enemy }\ 

x2 



»08 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

ART iv. but had so hated Esau as to have reduced his 

country to a wilderness. Moreover he hates, 

and persists in hating, with such pertinacity, that, 
after having brought Jacob back from captivity 
and restored him, still he suffered not the Eclom- 
ites to be restored ; but, even if they should say 
they would build, himself threatens them with 
destruction. If the Prophet's own plain text 1 
does not contain these things, let the whole world 
charge me with telling a lie. It is not the teme- 
rity of the Edomites then, which is reprehended 
here, but the ingratitude (as I have said) of the 
sons of Jacob ; who do not see what he is con- 
ferring upon them, and what he is taking away 
from their brothers the Edomites, for no reason 
but because he hates the one, and loves the 
other. u 

How will it now stand good, that the Prophet 
is speaking of temporary affliction ? when he de- 
clares in plain terms, that he is speaking about 
two distinct nations of people, who had descended 
from the two Patriarchs : that the one of these 
had been taken up to be his people, and had been 
preserved ; the other had been abandoned, and 
at length destroyed. Now the act of taking up 
a people as a people, and not taking them up as 
such, has not respect to temporal good or evil 
only, but to every thing. For our God is not the 
God of our temporal possessions only, but of 
every thing we have and look for : nor will he 
choose to be your God, or to be worshipped by 
you, with half a shoulder, or a limping foot, but 
with all your strength and with all your heart ; so 
as to be your God both here and hereafter, in all 
circumstances, cases, times, and works. 

1 Textusipse apertus Prophetce.~\ Ipse, without any additions 
of mine ; apertus, what requires no opening to make its mean- 
ing clear. 

u Hie odit, illic amat.~\ More literally, ' hates in the one 
quarter, and loves in the other. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 309 

The third of these elaborate excogitations is., sc.xxtx. 

'By a tropological form of expression, he declares 

that he neither loves all the Gentiles nor hates all £ acob and 

_ Jbsau are a 

the Jews; but some out of each. By this tro- trope for 
pical interpretation it is made out, says she, that J ewsand 
this testimony has no voice for proving neces- 
sity, but for repelling the arrogance of the Jews. 
Having made this way of escape for herself, she 
next goes out by it to the length of maintaining, 
that God is said to hate those who are not yet 
born, inasmuch as he knows beforehand that they 
will do things worthy of hatred. Thus the hatred 
and love of God are no obstacle to Freewill. She 
comes at last to the conclusion, that the Jews 
have been cut off from the olive tree by the merit 
of unbelief; that the Gentiles have been graffed 
into it by the merit of faith — making Paul the 
author of this sentiment — and gives hope to them 
that have been cut off, that they shall again be 
graffed in; and fear to them that have been 
graffed in, lest they should be cut off/ 

Let me die, if Diatribe knows herself what she 
is saying. But perhaps there is here also some 
rhetorical figure, which teaches scholars to obscure 
the sense, wherever there is any danger of being 
entrapped by the word. I see none of those 
tropical forms of speech here, which Diatribe 
imagines to herself in her dreams, but does not 
prove : no wonder then, that the testimony of 
Malachi does not oppose her, if taken in a 
tropological sense; when it has no such sense at 
all. Again ; our subject of disputation is not 
that cutting off and graffing in of which Paul 
speaks afterwards/ when he exhorts. We know 

v I insert the word e afterwards ' to give clearness. It is 
evidently the eleventh chapter to which he refers. — There can- 
not be a more pernicious practice in the interpretation of Scrip- 
ture (whilst there is scarcely any more common), than that of 
dragging in words which are somewhere thereabouts, but do really 
stand in quite a different connection, and have a perfectly dif- 



310 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



part iv. that men are graffed in by faith, and are cut off 

■ by unbelief, and that they are to be exhorted to 

believe, that they may not be cut off. But it does 
not follow from hence, neither is it proved, that 
they can believe or disbelieve through the power 
of the free will : which free will is the subject of 
our debate. We are not discussing who are 
believers and who not ; who are Jews and who 
are heathens ; what follows to believers and to 
unbelievers ; all this belongs to the exhorter. 
Our question is, by what merit, by what work, 
men attain to that faith by which they are graffed 
in ; or to that unbelief by which they are cut off. 
This is what belongs to the teacher. x Describe 
this merit to us. Paul teaches that this befals, 
not by any work of ours, but only by the love 
and hatred of God: and, when it has befallen men 
to believe, exhorts them to perseverance, that 
they may not be cut off. Still, exhortation proves 
not what we can do, but what we ought to do. 
I am forced to use almost more words in with- 
holding my adversary from wandering else whi- 
ther and leaving his cause, than in pleading the 
cause itself: howbeit, to have kept him to the 
point is to have conquered him ; so clear and in- 
vincible are the words which we have under con- 
sideration. Hence it is, that he does almost 
nothing else but turn aside from it, hurry away 
in an instant out of sight, and plead another 
cause than that which he had taken in hand. 
She takes her third passage from Isaiah xlv. 
Doth the clay say to its potter, what makest 



sc. xxx. 



The simile 
of clay in 



ferent scope ; to ascertain the meaning of a proposed text. An 
argument, or rather an illustrative exhortation of the eleventh 
chapter, separated from the preceding by many intervening 
subjects of discussion, is adduced by Erasmus to determine 
the meaning of an express affirmation in the early part of 
the ninth. 

x According to Paul's distinction of offices in Rom. xii. 6 — 8. 
" Having then gifts, &c. ; or he that teacheth, on teaching 5 
or he that exhorteth on exhortation." 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 311 

thou?" And from Jeremiah xviii. "As the clay is sc. xxx. 

in the hand of the potter, so are ye in my hand." 

' These words, again, are much stronger combatants ^j^o* 
in Paul, she says, than in the Prophets from ter, Paul 
whence they are taken; in the Prophets they doesnot 
are spoken of temporal affliction, but Paul applies Temporal 
them to eternal election and reprobation 9 — giving afflictions 
Paul a black-eye for his temerity, or for his evaders 
ignorance. force. 

But, before we see how she proves that neither 
of these passages exclude Freewill, let me first 
observe, that Paul does not appear to have taken 
this passage from the Prophets, nor does Diatribe 
prove that he has. Paul is wont to bring in the 
name of the writer, or to protest that he takes his 
sentiment from the Scriptures : neither of which 
he does here. It is therefore more probable that 
Paul uses this general simile (which different 
writers adopt for the illustration of different 
causes), in a sense of his own, for the illustration 
of the cause which he has in hand. Just as he 
does with that simile, u A little leaven corrupteth 
the whole lump f which, in 1 Cor. v., he adapts 
to corruptive manners, and elsewhere casts in the 
teeth of those who were corrupting the word of 
God : just as Christ also makes mention of the 
leaven of Herod and of the Pharisees. So then, 
although the Prophets may speak especially of 
temporal affliction (a point which I decline speak- 
ing to now, that I may not be so often occupied 
and put off with questions foreign to the subject); 
still Paul uses it in a sense of his own, against 
Freewill. But, how far it is shewn that Freewill* 
is not taken away, if we be clay to the afflicting 
hand of God ; or why Diatribe insists upon this 
distinction; I know not: since it is unquestion- 
able, that afflictions come upon us from God against 
our own will, and put us under the necessity of 
bearing them, whether we will or no, nor have 
we it in our own power to avert them ; although 



312 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART IV. 



SC.XXXI. 

The cavil 
from 
2 Tim ii. 
repelled. 



we are exhorted, it is true, to bear them with a 
willing mind. y 

But it is worth while to hear Diatribe prose- 
cute her cavil, that Paul does not exclude Free- 
will in his argumentation, by introducing this 
simile. She objects two absurdities; one of which 
she gathers from Scripture, the other from reason. 
The Scriptural one runs thus. 

When Paul had said in 2 Tim. ii. that in a 
great house there are vessels of gold and of sil- 
ver and of wood and of earth ; some for honour, 
and some for dishonour; he presently adds, "if a 
man shall have cleansed himself from these he 
shall be a vessel unto honour, &c." Upon this, 
Diatribe reasons thus : ' What could be more 
foolish than if a man should say to an earthen 
urinal, if thou shalt have purged thyself, thou 
shalt be a vessel of honour? which however would 
be rightly enough said to a cask possessed of 
reason, which has the faculty of accommodating 
itself to the will of its master, when admonished 
what that will is/ From these hints she would 
collect that the simile does not square in all 
respects, and is so far parried, as to prove no- 
thing. I answer, first, to the exclusion of this 
cavil, that Paul does not say, if a man shall have 
cleansed himself from his own filth, but from 
these; that is, from the vessels of reproach : so 
that the sense is, if a man shall abide in a state 
of separation from these ungodly teachers, and 
shall not have mixed himself with them, he shall 
be a vessel of honour, &c. But, what if I should 
also grant that this text of Paul's has no more 

y Erasmus says the Prophets speak only of temporal afflic- 
tions. What of this ? You do not disprove bond-will by this 
distinction, if it be just : rather, you adduce an instance of 
bond-will. These afflictions come, lie, remain against our 
will. How much does this shew of freedom ? — Voluntarie. 
We are taught indeed to make God's pleasure ours; but, 
whether we be enabled to do so, or not, his pleasure only is 
done. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 313 

efficacy than Diatribe wishes to give to it ; that sc.xxxi. 
is, that the simile proves nothing? how will she 
prove that Paul means just the same thing in that 
passage from Rom. ix. which we are discussing? 
Is it enough, to quote another passage, and to 
have no care at all whether it have the same 
scope or a different one ? There is not any easier 
or commoner failure in the interpretation of Scrip- 
ture, as I have often shewn, than that of paral- 
lelizing different passages of Scripture, as being 
alike; 2 so that similitude of texts (on the ground 
of which Diatribe here vaunts herself) is even 
more inefficacious than this simile of ours which 
she is confuting. But, not to be contentious, let 
me grant that each of these passages in PauPs 
writings means the same thing : and that a simile 
(which without controversy is true) does not 
always, and in all particulars, square with the 
thing illustrated. Indeed, if it did, it would be 
neither simile nor metaphor, but the very thing 
itself; according to the proverb, ' Simile halts, 
and does not always run upon all fours/ 

But here is Diatribe's error and offence ; she 
overlooks the cause of the comparison which 
ought to be looked at more than all the rest, and is 
captious and contentious about words : whereas 
the meaning is to be sought, as Hilary says, not 
only from the words used, but also from the causes 
which give occasion to them. Thus the force of a 
simile depends upon the cause of the simile. Why 
then does Diatribe leave out the matter for the sake 
of which Paul uses the simile, and catch at what he 
says over and above the cause of the simile. 
What he says, ' If a man shall have cleansed 
himself/ belongs to exhortation; what he says, 6 \\\ 
a great house are vessels, &C/ belongs to teach- 
ing: so that, from all the circumstances of PauPs 

z Velut similes coaptare."] I have given the idea rather than 
the exact word : it is * pairing, like horses joined together in 
a chariot,' 



814 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. ' 

part iv. words and sentiment, you would understand hini 
to be making a declaration about the diversity 
and use of vessels. The meaning therefore is, 
' Since so many are now departing from the faith, 
we have no consolation but in that we are sure, 
the foundation of God standeth firm, having this 
seal to it ; the Lord knoweth them that are his, 
and every one who calleth upon the name of the 
Lord departeth from iniquity/ Thus far we have 
the cause and the force of the simile ; namely, 
* that the Lord knoweth them that are his/ Then 
follows the simile; namely, 'that there are different 
vessels, some to honour, and some to disgrace.' 
Here ends the doctrine ; namely, ' that vessels do 
not prepare themselves, but their master prepares 
them/ Rom. ix. means also the same thing; 'that 
the potter hath power, &c/ Thus doth Paul's 
simile remain unshaken, as most efficacious to 
prove that Freewill is nothing before God. a 

After these follows the exhortation, " If any 
man shall have purged himself from these ;" the 
force of which expressions is well known from 
what has been said above. It does not follow from 



a Coram Deo.'] Referring to a distinction which I have 
already objected to (See Part i. Sect. xxv. note i ) ; as though 
there were some objects and considerations, with regard to 
which it is not a nothing. — Erasmus argues against the con- 
clusion drawn from the simile of the potter, chiefly by appeal- 
ing to c 2 Tim. ii. 20, 21. Luther says, 1. You mistake the 
words " from these." 2. If the simile be inefficacious here, this 
does not prove it so in Rom. ix. You must prove the simili- 
tude which you assume. 3. This passage, rightly interpreted, 
does mean the same, and does prove the very thing in dis- 
pute. — The account which Luther gives of this text, in 
its connection and construction, is perfectly correct. Ruin 
aboundeth ; " the nevertheless solid foundation of God stand- 
eth ;" evil does not contradict his will and plan, but fulfils it. 
In a great house there are vessels of two sorts. God's eternal 
separation of his people is manifested, realized, and consum- 
mated by their own God-enabled voluntary separation in time — 
through his Spirit working in due season. QejueXio? expresses 
the whole elect church of God laid by him as a sort of huge 
foundation-stone with inscriptions. See Zechar. iii. 9. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 315 

hence, that he can therefore cleanse himself: nay, sect. 

if any thing be proved by these words, it is that J ^ 

Freewill can cleanse itself without grace ; since 
he does not say, ' if grace shall have cleansed any 
one/ but c if he shall have cleansed himself/ 
Abundance however has been said about impera- 
tive and conjunctive verbs : and the simile, let it 
be observed, is not expressed in conjunctive 
verbs, but indicative ; ' as there are elect and 
reprobate, so there are vessels of honour and of 
ignominy/ In a word, if this evasion be admitted, 
Paul's whole argument falls to the ground. To 
what purpose would he introduce persons mur- 
muring against God as the potter, if the fault 
were seen to be in the vessel and not in the pot- 
ter? Who would murmur at hearing that one 
worthy of damnation is damned ? b 

Diatribe culls a second absurdity from Madam Reason's 
Reason, commonly called Human Reason; namely, ^. vil . fro ™ 
'that the fault is not to be imputed to the vessel 
but to the potter : especially since he is such a 
potter as creates the very clay itself and moulds 
it. Here is a vessel cast into eternal fire, says 
Diatribe, which has committed no fault but that 
of not being its own master. 5 4 

Nowhere does Diatribe more openly betray Set forth 
herself than in this place. For here is heard, in ™ *?* au " 
other words it is true, but with the same meaning, 
what Paul represents profane men as saying: 
" Why doth he find fault ? who shall resist his 
will?" This is that verity which reason can 
neither apprehend, nor endure. This is what 
offends so many persons of excellent talents, 
received for so many ages ! Here forsooth they 
demand of God that he should act according to 
human law, and do what seemeth right to them; or 

b On the contrary supposition to that assumed and reasoned 
upon by Paul, the vessel is not the potter's workmanship, as 
having been made by him just such as he is 5 but his own. 
Why defend the potter then ? 



316 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. cease to be God. The secrets of his Majesty 
" shall profit him nothing. Let him give a reason 

why he is God, or why he wills or does what 
hath no appearance of justice; as you would call 
a cobbler or a tailor to come and stand at your 
judgment-seat. The flesh does not think fit to put 
such an honour upon God as to believe him just 
and good, when he speaks and acts above and 
beyond the rules prescribed in Justinian's Codex, 
or the fifth book of Aristotle's Ethics. Let the 
creative majesty give place to one single dreg 
of his creation, and let the famed Corycian cave 
change places with its spectators, and stand in 
awe of them, not they of if I So then, it is absurd 
that he damns a person who cannot avoid de- 
serving damnation : and because this is such an 
absurdity, therefore it must be false that " he hath 
mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he 
will he hardeneth." But he must be brought 
to order, and laws must be prescribed to him, 
that he may not condemn any one who has not 
first deserved it according to our judgment. Thus 
only can they be satisfied with Paul and his 
simile ; namely, by his recalling it, and allowing 
it co have no meaning, but so moderating it, that 
according to Diatribe's explanation, the potter 
here makes a vessel to dishonour, on the ground of 
previous deservings : just as he rejects some Jews 
And con- for unbelief; and takes up the Gentiles for their 
futed * faith. But if God's work be such that he have 
respect to merits, why do they murmur and ex- 
postulate ? How come they to say, ' Why doth 
he find fault? who resisteth his will?' What need 
is there for Paul to stop their mouths ? For who 
wonders, I will not say who is indignant or ex- 
postulates, if he be condemned of his own desert? 
Again; what becomes of the power of the potter 
to make what he pleases, if he be subjected to 
merits and laws ? ]He is not suffered to do what 
he will, but is required to do what he ought. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 317 

Respect to merits is quite at variance with the sect. 

power and liberty of doing what he pleases : as v 

the householder in the parable proves, when he 
opposes liberty of will in the disposal of his good 
things to the murmurs of his labourers who de- 
manded a distribution according to right. These 
are amongst the considerations which invalidate 
Diatribe's gloss. 

But let us suppose pray, that God ought to be Exposed 
such an one as hath regard to merits in the ["JSt*-^ 
damned. Shall we not equally maintain and allow, why not 
that he looks at merits also in the saved. If we cavi J 
have a mind to follow Reason, it is equally unjust salvation ' 
that the unworthy be crowned, as that the unwor- of the 
thy be punished. Let us conclude then, that save * 
God must justify on the ground of previous de- 
servings; or we shall declare him unjust, as being 
delighted with evil and wicked men, and inviting 
them to impiety by crowning them with rewards. 
But woe unto us — who would then be indeed 
wretched beings — if this were our God. For who 
then should be saved ? — See how good for nothing- 
is the human heart ! When God saves the un- 
worthy without merit; nay, when he justifies the 
ungodly with much demerit ; this heart does not 
accuse him of unfairness : this heart does not then 
imperiously demand of him why he wills thus — 
though it be most unfair, according to her own 
judgment — but, forasmuch as it is advantageous 
and acceptable to herself, she counts this fair 
and good. But, when he condemns the unde- 
serving — seeing it is disadvantageous to herself — 
this is unfair, this is intolerable: here comes in 
expostulation, murmuring, blasphemy. 

You see then that Diatribe and her friends do not 
judge according to equity in this cause, but accord- 
ing as their interest is affected. If she had regard 
to equity, she would expostulate with God for 

c Luther personifies ' the heart/ or rather e the wicked- 
ness of the heart : ' which I have therefore ventured to make 
feminine. 



318 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. crowning the unworthy, just as much as she does 

for condemning the undeserving: she would also 

commend and extol God for condemning the 
undeserving, just as much as she does for 
saving the unworthy. In each case there is 
equal unfairness, if you refer the matter to 
our own judgment; unless it be not equally 
unrighteous to commend Cain for his murder, and 
make him a king ; as it would be to cast innocent 
Abel into prison, or put him to death. When it 
is found then, that reason commends God for 
saving the unworthy, but finds fault with him for 
condemning the undeserving, she stands con- 
victed of not commending God as God, but as 
one who promotes her own personal interest : in 
other words, she looks at self and her own things 
in God, and commends them; not at God and the 
things of God. The truth however is, that if 
you are pleased with God for crowning the un- 
worthy, you ought not to be displeased with him 
for condemning the undeserving. If he be just in 
the one case, why not in the other ? In the former 
case, he scatters favour and pity upon the unwor- 
thy ; in the latter, he scatters wrath and severity 
upon the undeserving: in both cases excessive 
and unrighteous according to man's judgment, 
but just and true according to his own. For, how 
it be just that he crowns the unworthy, is incom- 
prehensible at present \ but we shall see how, 
when we come to that place, where he will no 
longer be believed, but with open face beheld. So 
again, how it be just that he condemns the unde- 
serving, is incomprehensible at present; but we 
receive it as matter of faith, until the Son of man 
be revealed/ 

d Luther blunders a good deal here, whilst he says many 
excellent things. — In dealing with this cavil, c the fault then 
is in the potter/ he first sets forth its audacity, next repels 
Erasmus's gloss by it, then maintains that it is an interested 
judgment, not a judgment of equity, by which God is con- 
demned. — Much of the difficulty is, no doubt, resolvable into 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 319 

Diatribe however, being sorely displeased with sect. 



this simile of the potter and the clay, and not a little 

i ■ i • i . i Scripture 

the sovereignty of God ; that sovereignty which is so bitterly must ^ e 

offensive to the carnal mind, whilst without the light of ij we understood 
cannot stir a step in God. Whence came creation in all and with quali- 
every part of its wide range ; whence come blessing and curs- fications. 
ing, either as foreordained or as fulfilled ; whence come heaven 
and hell, and inhabitants for each ; whence comes the devil, 
whence comes the fall of man ; whence comes sealed ruin on 
the one hand, and whence comes free restoration and glorifica- 
tion on the other ; but from him who makes no appeal to the 
creature for his vindication, but says c I have lifted up my hand 
that it shall be so V — But there is"a worthy end for all this ; which 
Luther saw not, and therefore did not assign : the sight of which, 
however, makes the difference of a cruel God and a wise one. (See 
Part iii. Sect, xxviii. notes * v x .) — It is not true that God con- 
demns the undeserving, or that he crowns the unworthy. Luther 
did not discern the mystery of the creation and fall of every 
individual man in Adam (see Part iii. Sect, xxxviii. note l , 
Partiv. Sect. x. note 2 ), neither did he understand the mystery of 
the predestinative counsel. Every individual of the human race 
became a hell-deserving sinner in Adam ; every individual of the 
saved is saved by virtue of new relations assumed by God, and 
given to him in Christ — as one previously self-ruined, whom 
Christ has rendered worthy to be taken up from his ruin, by 
having shared it with him. Predestination is fulfilment fore- 
arranged ; as is the execution, such was the covenanted design. 
It is self-destroyed ones therefore that are predestinated to hell ; 
even as it is Christ-made worthy ones that are predestinated to 
life. — Luther knew nothing about God's assuming relations, 
much less about his assuming distinct relations ; and shews 
once more how impossible it is to give any consistent account 
of the salvation of the righteous, on the basis of universal 
redemption : such a redemption must leave either partiality in 
God, or merit in man. Luther will have it indignos to avoid 
merit, and therefore leaves God / a respecter of persons.' — He 
does not say a word too much about sovereignty, but he puts 
it in its wrong place, and omits what ought to be added to it — 
the end for which it is exercised. The place is, ' God de- 
termining to make creatures with opposite destinies — some to 
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt — 
vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy.' And that we may not 
even in heart murmur here, we must have an adequate end 
•Ziewn to us. It is shewn to as many as have an eye to see it ; 
*■ he determines to make, and he does make them, to his own 
glory — the manifesting of himself, according to what he really 
is.' M What if God, willing, &c." (Rom. ix. 22—24.) — In the 
fulfilment of this design sovereignty is not the hinge j there is 
nothing from first to last, in the varieties of the way or of the 



320 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. indignant to be so hunted by it, is reduced at 

length to the extremity of producing different 

passages from Scripture, of which some seem to 
ascribe all to man and some all to grace, and then 
contending in her passion, that both these ought 
to be understood with a sober explanation/ and 
not to be taken strictly. Else, if we urge this 
simile, she in her turn is prepared to urge us with 
those imperative and conjunctive texts ; especially 
with that of Paul's, " If a man shall have 
purged himself from these." Here she represents 
Paul to contradict himself, and to attribute all to 
man, except a sober explanation come to his aid. 
'If then an explanation of the text be admitted 
here, so as to leave room for grace, why may not 
the simile of the potter also admit of qualification, 
so as to leave room for Freewill V 

I answer, it is no matter to me whether you take 
the words in a simple sense, or in a double sense, 
or in a hundred senses. f What I say is, you 
gain nothing, you prove nothing (of what you seek 
to gain and prove), by this sober explanation. It 
ought to be proved, that Freewill can will nothing 

end, but what approves itself to right reason. — Luther seems to 
think that the salvation of the righteous escapes animadver- 
sion : the fact that there is such a state may ; but if the true 
nature of that state, and the true way to it, be faithfully 
opened, they are scarcely less offensive to the carnal mind, 
than the damnation of the lost. 

e Interpretatione sand.~\ I do not venture to render by ''qua- 
lified interpretation,' though this appears to be nearly the 
meaning : e a sound,' as opposed to extravagant, sense is to be 
assigned to the words, in contradistinction to their simple, 
literal meaning ; which, it is implied, would be extravagant 
and contradictory, A peculiar use of ' interpretatio,' which 
both Cicero and Quintilian recognise ; from whom Erasmus 
no doubt borrowed it : e a giving of the sense, instead of ren- 
dering the words ;' much as the Levites did when they read 
the law to the people after the captivity. Nehem. viii. 7, 8. 
See Part hi. Sect. xxx. note f . 

f Simpliciter, dupliciter, centuplic.'] Luther puns upon the 
word simpliciter : which is properly opposed to figurative, or 
tropical. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 321 

q-ood. But in this place, " If a man shall have sect. 

YYvnr 

purged himself from these/' the form of expression 
being conjunctive, neither is any thing, neither is 
nothing proved; Paul is only exhorting. Or if you 
add Diatribe's consequence and say, ' he exhorts 
in vain, if man cannot cleanse himself ;' then it is 
proved that Freewill can do every thing without 
grace. And so, Diatribe disproves herself. 

I still wait for some passage of Scripture there- 
fore, which teaches this explanation; I do not 
give credit to those who make it out of their own 
heads. I deny that any passage is found which 
ascribes all to man. I deny also that Paul is at 
variance with himself, when he says Ci If a man 
shall have cleansed himself from these." I affirm 
that the variance in Paul is not less a fiction, than 
the explanation which she extorts from it is a 
laboured invention ; and that neither of them is 
demonstrated. This indeed I confess, that, if it 
be lawful to increase the Scriptures with these 
consequences and appendages of Diatribe's — as 
when she says, injunctions are vain if we have 
not power to fulfil them — then Paul is really at 
variance with himself, and all Scripture with him, 
because then the Scripture is made different from 
what it was before. Then also she proves, that 
Freewill can do every thing. But what wonder 
if, in that case, what she says elsewhere be also 
at variance with her ; ' that God is the alone doer 
of every thing ?' But this Scripture, so added to, 
is not only at war with us, but with Diatribe her- 
self also, who has laid it down that Freewill can 
will nothing good. Let her therefore deliver her- 
self first of all, and say how these two things 
agree with Paul, c Freewill can will nothing 
good/ and, 'if a man shall have cleansed himself; 
therefore he can cleanse himself, or else it is said 
in vain.' You see therefore that Diatribe is 
plagued to death, and overcome, by this simile of 
the potter, and that all her effort is to elude the 

Y 



322 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART IV. 



SECT. 
XXXV. 

Luther has 
always 
maintained 
the perfect 
consisten- 
cy of 
Scripture 
— illus- 
trates it in 
affirmed 
opposites. 



force of it ; not heeding, in the mean while, how 
much her interpretation injures the cause which 
she has undertaken to defend, and how she is con- 
futing and making a jest of herself/ 

I, on the contrary, as I said before, have 
never been ambitious of interpretations, nor have 
I ever spoken after this manner, " extend the 
hand;" that is, c grace shall extend it/ h e These 
are Diatribe's fictions about me, to benefit her own 
cause. My affirmation has always been, that 
there is no variance in the words of Scripture, 
and no need of ' explanation 5 for the purpose of 
untying a knot. It is the assertors of Freewill 
who make knots where there are none, 1 and dream 
out discrepancies for themselves. For example ; 
those two sayings, " If a man shall have cleansed 
himself," and "God worketh all in all," are in no 
wise opposite : nor is it necessary, by way of 
untying a knot, to say, God does something and 
man does something. The former of these texts 
is a conjunctive sentence ; which neither affirms 
nor denies any work or power in man, but pre- 
scribes what work or power there ought to be 
in a man. There is nothing figurative here, no- 
thing which needs explanation ; the words are 
simple, the sense is simple, if you do not add con- 
sequences and corruptives after the manner of 
Diatribe. Then indeed the sense would become 
unsound : but whose fault would it be ? not the 
text's, but its corrupter's. 

The latter text, " God worketh all in all," is 
an indicative sentence, affirming that all work, all 
power is God's. In what respect then do two 
places disagree, of which one has nothing to do 



t All this alleged inconsistency in Scripture is the fruit of 
your additions ; by the aid of which you create inconsisten- 
cies, hut you also contradict your own positions. 

h Affedavimus, extended See above, Sect. iv. text and notes -, 
particularly note xx . 

1 Nodos in scirpo queerunt.'] See above, Part i. Sect.xxvi, note K 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 323 

with the power of man, and the other ascribes all sect. 
to God? Rather, do they not most perfectly XXXVL 
agree with each other ? Bat Diatribe is so 
plunged over head and ears, choked and sobbed, k 
by entertaining that carnal thought, f it is vain 
to command impossibilities/ as not to be able 
to restrain herself, whenever she hears an im- 
perative or conjunctive verb, from at once 
appending her own indicative consequences to it, 
and saying — c There is something commanded, 
therefore we can do it, else it would have been 
folly to command it.' Upon this, she sallies forth 
and makes boast of her victories every where, as 
though she had demonstrated that those con- 
sequences, together with her own imagination, 
were as much a settled thing, as the divine autho- 
rity. Upon this, she does not hesitate to pro- 
nounce that in some passages of Scripture every 
thing is ascribed to man ; that there is a discre- 
pancy therefore, a repugnacy in those places, 
which must be obviated by an explanation : not 
seeing, that all this is the figment of her own brain, 
without a single letter of Scripture to confirm it; 
that it is, besides, a figment of such kind, as, if 
admitted, would confute no one more stoutly than 
herself. For, would she not prove by it, if she 
prove any thing, that Freewill can do every 
thing? — the express contrary to that which she 
has undertaken to prove. 

Upon the same principle it is, that she so often in merit 
repeats the words, c If man does nothing there is ^, d re " &c 
no room for merit \ where there is no place for s he con- * 
merit, there is no place for punishment or for tradicts 

ijl - x herself — 

rewaiCl. proves an 

Again she does not see how much more stoutly absurdity 

and cannc 
tell what 



she confutes herself by these carnal arguments, a 



k Corrupia.'] The figure is that of a man drowned ; and the 
last term expresses the state of his substance, when now it has 
been long under water. It is like Virgil's { cererem corruptam 
undis.' ' 

y2 



324 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. than she does me. For what do these con- 
-■ sequences prove, save that all attainable merit is 

t e v ZT h J Freewill? What room will there then be for 
But in fact grace ? Besides, if you shall say Freewill earns 
nothra°— S a ver y '^tle, and grace the rest, why does Free- 
Paul will receive the whole reward ? Shall we also in- 
stands. vent a very small degree of reward for her ? If 
there must be place for merit, that there may be 
place for reward ; the merit should be as big as 
the reward. — But why do I lose my words and 
my time about a thing of nought ? Though even 
all which Diatribe is contriving should be built 
up and stand; and though it should be partly 
man's work, and partly God's work, that we have 
merit ; still they cannot define this very work in 
which our merit consists, of what sort, and how 
big it is — so that we are disputing about goats' 
hair. 1 Well then, since she proves none of those 
things which she asserts — neither discrepancy, 
nor qualified interpretation — nor can exhibit a 
text of Scripture which ascribes all to man ; but 
all these things are phantasms of her own imagina- 
tion; Paul's simile of the potter and his clay 
maintains its ground, unhurt and irresistible, as 
proof that it is not of our own will, what sort of 
vessels we are formed; and that those exhorta- 
tions of Paul's, "If a man shall have purged him- 
self" and the like, are models to which we ought 
to be conformed, but are no proofs of either our 
performance or our endeavour. Let this suffice 
with respect to those passages about Pharaoh's 
hardening, about Esau, and about the potter. 
sect. Diatribe comes at length to those passages 

Yyy\[TT -m- ^ 

' which are cited by Luther in opposition to Free- 
Gen vi. 3 Wl ^> intending to confute them also ; of which the 
maintain- first is that from Gen. vi. " My Spirit shall not 
ed - always abide in man, because he is flesh." She 

confutes this passage in various ways. First, she 

1 Land caprind."] See above, Part ii. Sect. iii. note 9. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 325 

urges that "flesh" does not signify 'sinful affec- sect. 

tion' here, but c infirmity/ Secondly, she in- ' 

creases Moses's text: because his saying pertains 
to the men of that age, not to the whole human race, 
therefore she would say, 'in those men;' yet 
again, not applying it to even all the men of that 
age, since Noah is excepted. Lastly, she urges 
that this saying imports something else in the 
Hebrew language ; that is to say, the clemency 
and not the severity of God, according to Jerome : 
meaning possibly to persuade us, that, as this say- 
ing appertaineth not to Noah but to the wicked ; 
so the severity and not the clemency of God 
appertaineth to Noah, the clemency and not the 
severity of God appertaineth to the wicked ! — 
But we will pass over these fooleries of Diatribe's, 
who is every wliere telling us that she counts the 
Scriptures a fable. I care not what Jerome says 
in his trifling way here : it is certain he proves 
nothing ; and we are not inquiring what Jerome 
thinks, but what the Scripture means. Let the 
perverters of Scripture pretend, that the Spirit of 
God means his indignation. I affirm that she 
fails in her proof two ways : first, in that she 
cannot produce a single text of Scripture in 
which the Spirit of God is taken for God's indig- 
nation; whilst kindness and sweetness on the con- 
trary are every where ascribed to him : secondly, 
in that if she could by any means prove, that it is 
some where or other taken for indignation, still 
she cannot forthwith prove, that it necessarily 
follows it. must also be taken so here. So again, 
let her pretend that the flesh is taken for infir- 
mity, still she just in the same degree proves 
nothing. For, whereas Paul calls the Corinthians 
carnal, he certainly does not mean to impute 
infirmity, but fault to them — complaining as he 
does, that they were oppressed with sects and par- 
ties ; which is not infirmity, or incapacity to re- 
ceive more solid doctrine, but the old leaven of 



326 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. malice : which he commands them to purge out. 

Let us examine the Hebrew. 

" My Spirit shall not always be judging man^ 
because he is flesh." This is word for word what 
Moses says : m and, if we would give up our own 

m I am disposed to give rather a different turn to the declara- 
tion, though in no wise affecting Luther's argument. All he 
wants to shew is, that they are words of anger, not of pity and 
palliation. But since the word which we render "strive " and 
which Luther renders "judge " properly signifies * debate ' or 
' judgment given after discussion j? why might not the senti- 
ment be " My Spirit shall not be always proving that man is 
flesh ;* or " shall not always be reproving him for being 
flesh V* The great reason for continuing man in existence 
after the original and damning transgression was, that he 
might shew himself what he is, as he has made himself; so 
different from what God made him. The Lord here says, he 
will carry on this work of manifestation — this controversy, as 
it may be called — no longer than for one hundred and twenty 
years. There seems to be no great importance in the an- 
nunciation that he would not strive because he is flesh. He 
was so from the first moment of transgression 5 and not more so 
now, than from that moment. But the manifestation having 
been carried far enough, there was now a reason why it should 
cease. This trial, or controversy, or judgment, or proof, or 
reproof, was effected by the divine Spirit both mediately and 
immediately acting upon their spirit. Luther confines it to the 
effect of their intercourse with others ; such as Noah, and those 
of the Lord's people who had lived and were living with those 
generations of men : in whom the Spirit of God was. But did 
not that Spirit also act upon these disobedient ones, without 
their intervention ? that Spirit, which, according to Luther, 
'moves and drives ' all God's creatures. — ( p-j appendere — 

litem vel causam agere — quomodo ' disceptare ' signift. et 
t judicare.' fut ftTl disceptabit. Gen. vi. 3.' (Sim. Lex. Hebr. 
in loc.) — ' "pHI Contendit. prop, appendit. 2. Judicavit, i. e. 
appendit bilance judicii. 3. In judicio contendit. To judge, 
to strive, to litigate.' (Robertson's Clavis Pentateuch in loco.) 
D|\2El ( Inasmuch as,' ' for that.' Robertson. Simon de- 
rives it rather differently, and explains by e £v -w' seducere 
eos 3 i. e. dum seducit eos ipsa caro. 

Luther seems to lose the particular point of the preceding 
verses, when he speaks of the ' sons of men ' marrying wives ; 
it is the sons of God seeing the daughters of men, &c. meaning 
surely those who practised and made profession of his worship, 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 327 

dreams., the words are sufficiently clear and ma- sect. 
uifest, I think, as they stand there. But the XXXVIL 
words which go before and which follow after, 
connected as they are with the bringing on of the 
flood, sufficiently shew that they are the expres- 
sions of an angry God. They were occasioned by 
the fact of the sons of men marrying wives through 
the mere lust of the flesh, and then oppressing 
the earth with tyranny, so as to compel God to 
hasten the flood, through his anger; scarcely 
allowing him to defer for an hundred years what 
he would otherwise never have brought upon the 
earth. Read Moses carefully, and you will see 
that he clearly means this. But what wonder that 
the Scriptures are obscure, or that you set up not 
only Freewill, but even Divine will through their 
means, if you be at liberty to sport with them as if 
you were looking for scraps and shreds of Virgil in 
them. n This forsooth is untying knots and putting 
an end to questions by a qualified interpretation ! 
But Jerome and his friend Origen have filled 
the world with these trifling conceits, and have 
been the originators of this pestilent precedent 
for not consulting the simplicity of Scripture. 

It was enough for me, that it be proved from 
this text, that divine authority calls men flesh ; 
and in such manner flesh, that the Spirit of God 
could not continue amongst them, but at a fixed 
period must be withdrawn from them. He ex- 
plains presently what he means by declaring that 
his Spirit shall not always judge amongst men ; 
by prescribing the space of an hundred and twenty 
years, as that in w r hich he should still judge. He 

in opposition to those who had thrown it off. The great 
offence and provocation seems to have been given by that hypo- 
critical remnant, to and concerning which Enoch, as appears 
from Jude, verse 15, had previously prophesied. 

11 Virgilicentonas.~\ More literally, ' Virgilian centos.' 
° Simplicitati scripturarum studeretur.~\ i. e. taking care to 
maintain a plain sense where it is practicable, in opposition to a 
figurative one. 



328 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. opposes the Spirit to the flesh, because men, 

being flesh, do not receive the Spirit ; and he, 

being Spirit, cannot approve the flesh: whence it 
would arise, that he must be withdrawn after an 
hundred and twenty years. So that we may un- 
derstand the passage in Moses thus : ' My Spirit, 
which is in Noah and my other saints, reproves 
those wicked men by the word they preach, and 
by the holy life they lead (for to judge amongst 
men is to exercise the ministry of the word 
amongst them p — to reprove, rebuke, and entreat, 
in season and out of season); but in vain. For 
they, being blinded and hardened by the flesh, 
become worse the more they are judged : just as 
it is, whensoever the word of God comes into the 
world \ men are made worse, the more they are 
instructed. And this is the cause why the wrath 
of God is now hastened, just as the flood also 
was hastened in that day ; not only do men sin 
now-a-days, but even grace is despised, and as 
Christ says, \ Light is come but men hate light/ 

Since men are flesh therefore, as God himself 
testifieth, they can mind nothing but the flesh ; so 
that Freewill can have no power but to commit 
sin : and since, with even the Spirit of God 
calling amongst them and teaching them, they 
grow worse ; what would they do when left 
to themselves, without the Spirit of God? — Nor 
is it any thing to the purpose here, that Moses 
speaks of the men of that age. The same is true 
of all men, since all are flesh, as Christ says in 
John iii. 6. if That which is born of the flesh is 
flesh. " How great a malady this is, he teaches 
us himself on the same occasion, when he says, 
" No one can enter into the kingdom of God, ex- 
cept he have been born again." Let the Chris- 
tian know therefore, that Origen and Jerome, and 

p Officio verbi inter eos agere.~\ Implying more than mere 
preaching 5 he has before said ' per verbum prsedicationis et 
vitam piorum ;' it is word administered by mouth and life. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 329 

all their tribe, are guilty of a pernicious error in sect. 
denying that the flesh is to be taken for ungodly ^^ 
affection in these places. For that expression in " 
1 Cor. iii. "Ye are yet carnal?' bespeaks ungod- 
liness. Paul means that they had ungodly per- 
sons still auiougst them; and further, that the 
godly, so far as they mind carnal things, are 
carnal; although they have been justified by the 
Spirit. 

In short, you will observe in Scripture that 
wheresoever the flesh is treated of in opposition 
to the Spirit, you may almost always understand 
by the flesh every thing that is contrary to the 
Spirit. For instance ; " The flesh profiteth no- 
thing." But where it is treated of absolutely, 
you may know that it denotes the bodily nature 
and condition : as " They two shall be one flesh." 
(i My flesh is meat indeed." " The word w r as 
made flesh." In these places you may change the 
Hebrew idiom and say 'body/ instead of flesh: 
the Hebrew language expressing by one word 
6 flesh/ what we do by the words ' flesh ' and 
c body/ I wish indeed that it had been so trans- 
lated, by distinct terms, throughout the whole 
canon of Scripture, without exception. — So that 
my text from Gen. vi. will still maintain its place 
boldly, I think, as the opponent of Freewill: since 
it is proved, that the flesh, as here spoken of, is 
that same substance of which Paul says in Ro- 
mans viii. that " neither can it be subjected to 
the will of God" (as we shall see when we come 
to that place); and of which Diatribe says her- 
self, that it can will nothing good. q 

i It is impossible to understand this text so as that it shall 
not be a decisive testimony against Freewill. Whether it be 
that ' God would cease to prove man,, what he is/ or l cease to 
judge him, because he is such an one ;' w T hat he is remains the 
same ; and that is something so vile that God cannot any 
longer tolerate it. — I confess that I greatly prefer understand- 
ing the flesh in Rom. vii. viii. as the bodily part of the saint j 
which, whilst he remains in this world, is unrenewed. But 



SECT. 
XXXVIII. 



330 . BONDAGE OF THE WILL/ 

part iv. The second passage is from Gen. viii. " The 
imagination and thought of man's heart are prone 
to evil from his youth." And in chap. vi. " Every 
thought of man's heart is intent upon evil con- 
Gen, viii. tinualiy." She puts off this by saying, c The prone- 
21. and ness ^ evil, which is in most men, does not alto- 
tained. " gether take away the freedom of the will/ 

But does God, pray, speak of most men, and 
not rather of all men, when, as if repenting himself 

what difference does this make as to the question of Freewill \ 
Every individual man is by natural constitution " enmity 
against God ;" so far as that natural constitution remains in 
the saint, he also is enmity. The passage under consideration 
either says,, or implies, being he is flesh, he is contrary to the 
Spirit and offensive to God. What is the state of his will 
then ? — I would rather understand the word * flesh ' here, of 
his whole substance or constitution than, as Luther and most 
other divines do, of ' an affection ' of it. Indeed, I consider 
that much jargon has been introduced into theology by this 
distinction. It has led to what is called the doctrine of two 
principles (the term ( principle ' being a very indefinite one, 
and a shelter for almost every thing that is unknown or wishes 
to be obscure) ; whereas I believe there are few if any places 
in Scripture, in which it may not be understood of ' the human 
substance,' either in its complexity as soul and body, or in 
its dividuality, as body only. — I by no means subscribe to 
the interpretation which Luther assigns to some of the texts 
he adduces. " The flesh proiiteth nothing " is not ( evil affec- 
tion ' but ' the natural substance of man . as contrasted with 
f the Spirit/ " The word was made flesh," does not declare 
body in opposition to soul, but that whole human person which 
the second Person of the ever-blessed Trinity did verily and 
actually assume into union with himself when the fulness of 
the time was come. So "my flesh is meat indeed" does not 
exclude his soul as made an offering for sin : neither does the 
<c one flesh " which the church is made to be with Christ ex- 
clude him that is joined to the Lord from being one Spirit. — 
As a hint to shew that, if Luther's interpretation and distinction 
with respect to the term ' flesh ' be admitted, a third must at 
least be added (viz. this sense which comprehends the whole 
human substance, and so constitutes a title which distinguishes 
man from all other creatures) ; I would mention Psalm cxlv. 21, 
Luke iii. 6. Isaiah xl. 5, 6. John xvii. 2. 1 Cor. i. 29. to which 
others without number might be added. — Luther speaks with 
sufficient exactness of the presence and withdrawal of the 
Spirit to make it clear that he did not understand Him to have 
dwelt in the ungodly -, whilst he omits a very important part of 
His agency. (See above, note m .) 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 331 

after the flood, lie promises to those which re- sect. 
uiained of men, and to those which should come * m 
after, that he would not any more bring a flood 
because of man ; subjoining as the reason, that 
man is prone to evil? As if he should say, 
S Were man's wickedness to be regarded, there 
must never be any cessation from a flood : but I 
do not mean hereafter to look at man's deserv- 
ings Sec/ So you see God affirms that men were 
evil both before the flood and after it; making it 
to be nothing, what Diatribe says about most men. 
Then again, this proneness or propensity to evil 
seems a matter of small moment to Diatribe ; as 
though it were within the limits of our own power 
to raise it up v or restrain it : whereas the Scrip- 
ture means to express by this proneness that con- 
stant seizure and impulse of the will towards evil. 
Why has not Diatribe consulted the Hebrew text 
even here also? in which Moses says nothing 
about proneness ; that you may have no ground 
for cavilling. For thus it is written in chap. vi. 
" Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart 
is only evil all his days/' He does not say intent 
upon, or prone to evil, but absolutely evil ; and 
that nothing but evil is imagined and thought of 
by man all his life. The nature of its wickedness 
is described; that it neither does, nor can do other- 
wise, seeing it is evil : for an evil tree cannot 
bear any other than evil fruit, according to Christ's 
testimony. As to Diatribe's cavil, ' Why is space 
given for repentance, if repentance be in nowise 
dependent upon the will, but every thing is 
wrought by necessity?' my reply is, you may say 
the same of all the precepts of God : why does he 
enjoin, if all things happen by necessity ? He 
commands, that he may instruct and admonish men 
what they ought to do, that having been humbled 
by the recognition of their own wickedness they 

r Erigere.] See Part iii. Sect, xxxviii. note V 



332 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part IV. may attain to grace; as hath been abundantly 

declared. 5 So that this text, also, still stands its 

ground invincibly, as the antagonist of Freewill. 
sect. The third passage is that of Isai. xl. " She hath 
received of the Lord's hand double for all her 
Isaiah sins." Jerome, says she, interprets it of divine 
xi.2.main- vengeance, not of grace given in return for evil 
tamed. deeds. This means, ? Jerome says so, therefore it 
is true/ I affirm that Isaiah asserts a certain pro- 
position in most express words, and Jerome is 
cast in my teeth ; a man, to speak in the gentlest 
terms, of no judgment or diligence. What is be- 
come of that promise, on the faith of which we 
made a compact that we would plead the Scrip- 
tures themselves, not human commentaries? 1 

This whole chapter of Isaiah, according to the 
Evangelists, speaks of remission of sins as an- 
nounced by the Gospel ; in which they affirm that 
" the voice of him that crieth " pertaineth to 
John the Baptist. Now is it to be endured, 
that Jerome should, after his manner, obtrude 
Jewish blindnesses upon us as the historical sense 
of the passage, and then his own silly conceits by 
way of allegory to it; that, through a perver- 
sion of grammar, we may understand a passage, 
which speaks of remission, to speak of vengeance ? 
What sort of vengeance is it, pray, which has 
been fulfilled by preaching Christ?" — But let us 

55 See above Part iii. Sect. xxii. &c. 

* See Partii. Sect. i. 

u There is a vengeance connected with the preaching of 
Christ ; yea, and a necessary part of that preaching. i( To 
preach the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of ven- 
geance of our God." The kingdom of God has enemies that 
would not be reigned over by the King, to be trodden under 
foot, as well as princes to be seated on thrones. There are 
souls to be cut off amongst the people by not hearing that 
Prophet, as well as souls to be gathered by hearing him. " We 
are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved 
and in them that perish. To the one we are a savour of life 
unto life; and to the other a savour of death unto death." 
The Lord Jesus said- of his Jewish opposers, " If I had not 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 333 

look at the words themselves in the Hebrew, sect. 
Be comforted (says he), be comforted, O my XXXIX - 
people; or, comfort ye, comfort ye my people, 
saith your God. I imagine he does not inflict 
vengeance who commands consolation. It fol- 
lows; "speak to the heart of Jerusalem and pro- 
claim unto her/' To speak to the heart is an He- 
braism; meaning, to speak good, sweet and 
soothing things : as, in Genesis xxxiv. Sichem 
speaks to the heart of Dinah, whom he had defiled; 
that is, he soothed her in her sadness with soft 
words — as our translation has it. What those 
good and sweet things are, which God hath com- 
manded to be spoken for their consolation, he 
explains by saying, " For her warfare is finished, 
insomuch that her iniquity is pardoned ; seeing, 
she hath received of the Lord's hand double for 
all her sins." — c Warfare/ which our manuscript 
copies exhibit faultily by the word e malice,' 
appears to the audacious Jewish grammatists/ to 
denote a stated time : for thus they understand 
that saying in Job vii. The life of man upon the 
earth is a ' warfare ;■ that is, there is an appointed 
time to him. I prefer considering the term c war- 
fare ' to be used literally, according to its gram- 
matical sense; understanding Isaiah to speak 6f 
the course and labour of the people under the 
law, which was like that of combatants in the 

come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin." The 
manifestation of what is in man — of the Satanic enmity of the 
human heart — is peculiarly effected by the preaching of Christ. 
But it is not the form of that dispensation to condemn ("God 
sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world"), 
though aggravated guilt and increased condemnation be the 
actual, result of his coming. Nor is Luther's argument in- 
validated by this result : the people to be comforted are not 
objects of vengeance, but of favour. 

■ v Grammatistis .] Not granimaficiw, but grammafisto .- a 
name of reproach, which he applies here to the Jewish Rabbins ; 
who were sciolists in literature, though vast pretenders, and 
took great liberties with the sacred text. See above. Sect. iv. 
note '. 



334 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. stadium. For thus Paul by choice compares both 

the preachers and hearers of the word to soldiers ; 

as, when he commands Timothy to fight as a good 
soldier, and to war a good warfare : and repre- 
sents the Corinthians to be running in a race- 
course. So again, " No man is crowned except 
he strive lawfully." He clothes both the Ephe- 
sians and the Thessalonians with armour, and 
boasts that he has himself fought the good fight: 
and the like in other places/ So in 1 Kings 
(I Samuel), it is written in the Hebrew text, 
that the sons of Eli slept with the women who 
were performing service (literally, ' warring') at 
the door of the tabernacle of the covenant : of 
whose warfare Moses also maketh mention in 
Exodus/ Hence too, the God of that people is 
called the Lord of Sabaoth ; that is, the Lord of 
warfare or of armies. 

Isaiah therefore declares, that the warfare of a 
legal people with which they were harassed under 
the law, as with an insupportable burden (accord- 
ing to the testimony of Peter in Acts xv.), should 
be finished ; and that they, being delivered from 
the law, should be translated into the new service of 
the Spirit. Moreover, this end of their most hard 
service, and this succession of a new and most 
free one shall not be given them through their 
merit (since they could not even bear that service), 
but rather through their demerit; because their 
warfare is finished in this manner, through their 
iniquity being freely forgiven them. Here are no 
obscure or ambiguous words. He says that their 
warfare shall be finished, because their iniquity is 
forgiven them ; plainly intimating, that they, as 
soldiers under the law, had not fulfilled the law — 
neither could have fulfilled it — but had been war- 
ring in the service of sin, and had been sinner 

x 2 Tim. ii. 3. 1 Tim. vi. 12. 1 Cor. ix. 24—27. 2 Tim. ii. 5. 
Ephes. vi. 1 Thess. v. 2 Tim. iv. 7. 

y Exod. xxxviii. 8. Compare 1 Sam. ii. 22. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 335 

soldiers : as if God should say, I am compelled to ??9 T : 

forgive them their sins, if I would have the law J 

fulfilled by them ; nay, I am compelled at the 
same time to take away the law, because I see 
that they cannot but sin — and that most of all, 
when they are militating; that is, labouring to 
shew the model of the law 2 through their own 
strength. The Hebrew phrase " her iniquity 
hath been forgiven," denotes c gratuitous good 
pleasure :' by which iniquity ' is made a present of' 
(forgiven) without any merit, nay with absolute 
demerit. This is what he subjoins. 

" For she hath received of the Lord's hand 
double for all her sins." This, as I have said, 
means not only remission of sins, but even a 
finished warfare ; which is nothing else but — the 
law, which was the strength of sin, being taken 
away; and sin, which was the sting of death, 
being forgiven — to reign in twofold liberty, 
through the victory of Jesus Christ : this is 
what Esaias means by his Ci Of the hand of the 
Lord." They have not obtained these things by 
their own strength or merits, but have received 
them through the conquests and free gift of 
Christ. 6i In all their sins," is an Hebraism ; 
agreeing to what is expressed in Latin by for or 
on account of their sins : just as in Hosea xii. it 
is said, Jacob served in his wife ; that is, for 
his wife. And in the 1 7th Psalm, they have com- 
passed me round in my soul ; that is, for my 
soul. Isaiah therefore represents our merits, in 
a figure, to be the procuring cause of this two- 
fold liberty 5 namely, the finished warfare of the 
law, and forgiveness of sin; because these (our 
merits) have been only sins, and all of them 
sins. 

Shall we then suffer this most beautiful and 

2 Legem exprimere.'] Properly, f to press, wring, strain, or 
squeeze out;' hence applied figuratively to models in wax,, 
marble, or canvass. 



336 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part IV. invincible text against Freewill to be polluted 
with Jewish filthy such as Jerome and Diatribe 
have daubed upon it ? God forbid ! On the con- 
trary, ray friend Esaias keeps his ground as 
the conqueror of Freewill, and makes it clear 
that grace is given, not to the merits or endea- 
vours of Freewill, but to its sins and demerits ; 
and that Freewill can, by its own powers, 
do nothing but maintain the warfare of sin — 
insomuch that even the very law, which is sup- 
posed to have been given as a help to her, was 
an intolerable burden, and made her yet more a 
sinner whilst militating under it. a 

a Militantem .] The word ( milito,' which occurs in divers 
forms throughout this passage, expresses f the whole state of a 
soldier' as to doing and suffering, in preparation, conflict, and 
endurance. — Luther goes far afield for his solution and de- 
fence of this text 3 1. Warfare is her legal service. 2. She 
only sinned in that service. 3. She was rewarded for sin, not 
merit. — The truth, if I mistake not, lies nearer home. Why not 
understand fC double for all her sins" as a phrase to denote, 
that ' great and manifold as her sins had been, she was re- 
ceiving the double of them in divine favour.' Double is a finite 
put for an infinite. (So Isa. lxi. 7- Jerem. xvi. 18. xvii. IS. 
Zech. ix. 12. Rev. xviii. 6.) Her warfare is the whole interval 
of her toil and labour. — I cannot but think that the prophecy 
in its consummation is still future ; though it has already re- 
ceived a partial fulfilment. Jerusalem's warfare is not yet 
accomplished : but the whole space from the Lord's first 
coming in the flesh to his hereafter coming in glory is com- 
prehended in this prophecy ; in which it will at length be seen 
that the Jerusalem ( which then was' had an interest. The 
visible church received this f double ' at the coming, or rather 
at the ascension, of the Lord Jesus ; when her covenant of 
condemnation was exchanged for a covenant of righteousness. 
But the prophecy looks farther ; even to the end of that 
new dispensation which John Baptist began, when the true 
church — " the church of the first-born, which are written in 
heaven" — shall receive its consummation and bliss ; and the 
national Israel, which has been running a parallel with it 
throughout the whole of its history, shall receive and enjoy 
what it has never yet truly possessed — its Canaan and 
its Temple. Thus, I neither understand the c warfare,' nor 
the f double,' with Luther's strictness ; I might rather say,/ar- 
fetched-ness : nor do I place this text where he would place 
it, as a testimony against Freewill. It is only by implication 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 337 

As to what Diatribe argues, that c although sect.xl. 

sin abounds through the law, and where sin hath 

abounded, Grace also abounds; but it does not ^P 1S0 ° e 

" o " upon ijtou s 

follow hence, that man, assisted by the help of help.— 
God, cannot, even before grace makes him ac- Cornelius 
ceptable, prepare himself, by means of works 
morally good, for the divine favour :' 

I shall wonder, if Diatribe be speaking here of 
her own head, and have not culled this flower 
from some document sent or obtained from some 
other quarter; which she has entwined into her 
own nosegay. b She neither sees, nor hears, what 
her own words mean. If sin aboundeth by the 
law, how is it possible that a man can prepare 
himself by moral works for the divine favour ? 
How can works profit, when the law does not 
profit ? or what else is it for sin to abound by the 
law, but that works done according to the law 
are sins ? But of this in another place. — Then 
what is it she says, that c man assisted by the 
help of God can prepare himself by good works V 
Are we arguing about God's help, or about Free- 
will ? What is not possible to the divine help ? 
But this is just what I said, Diatribe despises the 
cause she is pleading, and therefore snores and 
gapes so in the midst of her talk. 

But she adduces Cornelius the centurion, as 
an example of a man whose prayers and alms 
have pleased God, before he was yet baptized, 
and inspired with the Holy Spirit. 

a testimony against Freewill j it is a broad, palpable testi- 
mony to " reigning grace :" sin is requited with super- 
abounding, free favour ; and it is implied that there has been, 
and could be, nothing but sin going before. — The hypothetical, 
and therefore questionable, nature of Luther's interpretation is 
manifested by his own testimonies: all rest upon 'militia;' 
which he makes law-service. But does not he cite the Gospel 
also called a warfare ? To whom are these sayings in Timothy, 
the Corinthians, Ephesians, &c. addressed ? 

b Libro suo inseruerit.~] I have ventured to maintain Luther's 
figure of ' decerpserit.' 

Z 



338 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. I also have read Luke's account in the Acts ; 
but I have never found a single syllable which 
indicates that the works of Cornelius were morally 
good without the Holy Spirit, as Diatribe dreams. 
On the contrary, I find that he was a just man, 
and one that feared God : for so Luke calls him. 
But for a man to be called a just man and one 
that fears God, without the Holy Spirit, is to call 
Belial Christ. — Then again, the whole argument 
in that passage goes to prove that Cornelius was 
one clean in the sight of God : even the vision, 
which was sent down from heaven to Peter, and 
which also rebuked him, testifies this; nay, the 
righteousness and faith of Cornelius are cele- 
brated by Luke in such great words, and by such 
great deeds, that it is impossible to doubt them. 
Diatribe however, with her friends the Sophists, 
contrives to be blind, and to see the contrary, 
with her eyes open, amidst the clearest light of 
words and evidence of facts. Such is her want of 
diligence in reading and observing the Scriptures ; 
which in that case may well be defamed as ob- 
scure and ambiguous. What though he had not 
yet been baptized, and had not yet heard the tes- 
timony to Christ's resurrection ! Does it follow 
from thence that he had not the Holy Spirit ? On 
the same principle, you will say that John the 
Baptist also, with his father and mother — next, 
Christ's mother and Simeon — had not the Spirit ! 
But away with such thick darkness ! c 
sec.xli. My fourth text ? taken from the same chapter of 
Esaias, " All flesh is grass, and ail the glory 

c Cornelius, if I distinguish rightly, was a quickened man, 
but not a converted man : one begotten again from death by 
the Holy Ghost, but not yet turned to the Lord — for how could 
he be turned to him whom he knew not ? and how could he 
know him of whom he had not heard ? But he had already 
been brought by the Spirit of Christ into a state to receive 
Him when he should be manifested by preaching ; and the 
Lord had reserved, and still doth reserve, this honour for his 
outward word, and for his accredited ambassadors. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 339, 

thereof as the flower of grass; the grass wither- sec.xli. 
eth, and the flower thereof falleth, because the ; ' 
Spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it;" &c. seems 6**7* main- 
to my Diatribe to suffer very great violence, when tained. 
drawn to the subject of grace and Freewill. Why 
so, pray ! Because Jerome, says she, takes the 
Spirit for indignation, and the flesh for the infirm 
state of man ; which cannot stand against God. 
Again are the trifling conceits of Jerome pro- 
duced to me instead of Esaias. I have a harder 
fight to maintain against the weariness with which 
Diatribe's carelessness consumes me, than against 
Diatribe herself. But I have said very lately 
what I think of Jerome's sentiment. — Let us com- 
pare Diatribe's self with herself. Flesh, says she, 
is the infirm state of man. Spirit is the divine 
indignation. Has the divine indignation nothing 
else then to dry up, but only this wretched and 
infirm condition of man; which it ought rather 
to raise up than to destroy ? 

But this is a finer touch still. — c The flower of 
grass is the glory which arises from prosperity with 
respect to bodily things. The Jews gloried in their 
temple, in circumcision, and in their sacrifices : 
the Greeks in their wisdom.' So then, the flower 
of grass and the glory of the flesh is the righte- 
ousness of works and the wisdom of the world. 
How is it then, that righteousness and wisdom are 
called bodily things by Diatribe ? What must 
then be said to Esaias himself, who explains him- 
self in words without figure, where he says, 
" Truly the people is grass." He does not say, 
'■ Truly the infirm condition of man is grass,' but 
cc the people is grass ;" and he asserts it with an 
oath. What is the people then? Is it only the 
infirm condition of man ? I do not know indeed 
whether Jerome means ' the creature itself,' or 
* the wretched lot and state of man,' by c the in- 
firm condition of man.' — But, whichsoever of the 
two it be, the divine indignation ' carries off 

z2 



340 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. wonderful praise and ample spoils assuredly/ d 

in drying up a wretched creature, or men that are 

in a state of imhappiness, instead of scattering 
the proud and putting down the mighty from their 
seat, and sending the rich empty away ; as Mary 



sc. xlii. But let us bid adieu to our spectres, and fol- 

low Esaias. The people, says he, is grass. Now 

The true ^ p e0 pi e j s no \ mer ely flesh, or the infirm state 

interpret- r 1 J ■ ' . , 

ation. oi human nature, but comprehends whatsoever is 
contained in the people ; namely, rich men, wise 
men, just men, holy men : unless the Pharisees, 
the elders, the princes, the chiefs, the rich, &c. 
were not of the people of the Jews. Its glory is 
rightly called the flower of grass ; forasmuch as 
they boasted of their dominion, their government, 
and especially of their law, of God, of righteous- 
ness and wisdom ; as Paul argues in Rom. ii. iii. 
ix. When Esaias therefore says, " all flesh ;" 
what is this else but all the grass, or all the 
people ? For he does not simply say, " flesh," 
but " all flesh." Now there pertaineth to the 
people soul, body, mind, reason, judgment and 
whatsoever can be mentioned or discovered that 
is most excellent in man. For he who says " all 
flesh is grass" excepts no one, but the Spirit which 
dries it up. So neither does he omit any thing 
who says, " the people are grass." Let there be 
Freewill then, let there be whatsoever is accounted 
highest and lowest in the people, Esaias calls all 
this flesh and grass : seeing that these three nouns, 
flesh, grass, people, according to the interpret- 
ation of the very author of the book, mean the 
same thing in this place. 

Then again, you affirm your own self, that the 
wisdom of the Greeks, and the righteousness of 
the Jews, which were dried up by the Gospel, 
are grass, or the flower of grass. Do you think 

d Virg. Mn. iv. 93. e Luke i. 51, 52. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 341 

that wisdom was not the most excellent thing sc. xlii. 
which the Greeks possessed ? Do yon think that 
righteousness was not the most excellent thing 
which the Jews could work ? Shew me any thing 
that was more excellent than these. What be- 
comes of your confidence then, by which you 
gave even Philip a black-eye/ as I suppose ; say- 
ing, ( If any man should contend that what is best 
in man is nothing else but flesh — that is to say, 
wickedness — I will be ready to agree with him, * 
provided he but shew by Scripture testimonies 
that what he asserts is true?' 

You have here Esaias proclaiming with a loud 
voice that the people which hath not the Spirit of 
the Lord is flesh ; although even this loud voice 
does not make you hear. You have your own 
self's confession (made perhaps without knowing 
what you was saying), that the wisdom of the 
Greeks is grass, or the glory of grass ; which is 
just the same thing as calling it flesh. Unless 
you should choose to contend that the wisdom of 
the Greeks does not appertain to reason, or ■■' the 
leading thing/ g as you call it by a Greek term ; 
that is, to the principal part of man. Hear your- 
self at least, pray — if you despise me — when as 
you have been taken captive by the force of truth, 
affirming what is right. You have John declaring, 
<e That which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and 
that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit." This 
passage, which evidently proves that what is not 
born of the Spirit is flesh (else that division of 
Christ would not stand, by which he divides all 
men into two parties, the flesh and the Spirit) — 
this passage, I say, you have the courage to pass 
over — as if it did not teach you what you were 



f Etiam Philippum sugillabas.'] Philip Melancthon — who 
maintained a good deal of friendly intercourse with Erasmus, 
and was much more to his mind than Luther and the rest of 
the reformers : this explains etiam. 

8 To ?j^efio^iKoi/, 



342 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. demanding 11 -— and scurry away, as your manner is, 

to another subject; holding forth to us in the 

mean while, how that John says, c Believers are 
born of God and made sons of God ; yea Gods 
and new creatures/ You give no heed to the 
conclusion which the division leads to, but teach 
us in superfluous words who those are whom 
the other part of the division comprehends : 
trusting in your rhetoric, as if there was nobody 
to observe this most crafty transition and dissi- 
mulation of yours. 1 

It is hard to give you credit for not being art- 
ful and chameleon-like here. The man, who labours 
in the Scriptures with the wiliness and hypocrisy 
which you employ over them, may safely enough 

h Referring- to his challenge above ; ' provided he but 
shew/ &c. 

1 Luther's argument is, Freewill is called f flesh' here ; for 
it is part of ( the people' — which, with all that is in it, gets the 
name of ( flesh' here : for ' people/ ' flesh/ ' grass/ are declared 
by Isaiah himself to be the same thing. — You ought according 
to your own previous confession therefore to submit ; and, with 
respect to the real nature of flesh, we have it from our Lord's 
own mouth in John iii. — I do not fall in with his reasoning : if 
flesh mean what he says it does in John, must it also mean the 
same here ? But why must it mean what he says, in John ? why 
not there as well as here mean ' the whole substance and con- 
stitution of man / not ' body only/ nor ' ungodly affection.' (See 
above, Sect, xxxvii. note ^.) ' All flesh/ is e all human beings :' 
' the people ' generally distinguishes the Jews from the rest 
of the world 3 and so gives emphasis here. It is man's mor- 
tality, moreover, rather than his sin, which is brought into view 
here 5 as set in contrast with the immutability of God. (See 
the whole context from A^er. 3 to ver. 8, and compare with 
1 Pet. i. 24, 25.) The great subject of the prophecy is, the 
glory Jehovah shall be revealed : God — who is not, like man, 
grass and a liar — hath spoken it. — In the word ' grass,' I 
follow our English version, which has the authority of the 
original text — *vs?n herba virens a isfn viruit. But Luther 
has foenum ; grass in the state of ' cut and withered.' Thus, 
again we have a testimony against Freewill by implication 
only : and, though we need not wonder, as Erasmus does, how 
this should be dragged into the dispute (for if man be grass, 
what is his will ?) 5 I cannot help remarking, what I shall 
have occasion to do hereafter more freely, that Luther would 
have done wisely in keeping back some of his witnesses. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 343 

profess that he is not yet taught by the Scrip- sc. ^ LU - 
tures, but that he wishes to be taught; whereas ' 

he wishes nothing less, and only chatters thus, 
that he may disparage that most clear light which 
is in the Scriptures, and may give a grace to his 
own obstinacy. Thus the Jews maintain unto this 
day, that what Christ and the Apostles and the 
Church have taught is not proved by the Scrip- 
tures. Heretics cannot be taught any thing by 
the Scriptures. The Papists have not yet been 
taught by the Scriptures, although even the stones 
cry out the truth. Perhaps you are waiting for 
a passage to be produced from the Scriptures, 
which shall consist of these letters and syllables, 
' The principal part in man is flesh f or ' that 
which is most excellent in man is flesh;' and till 
then, mean to march off as an invincible conqueror. 
Just as though the Jews should demand that a 
sentence be produced from the Prophets consist- 
ing of these letters ; * Jesus, the son of a car- 
penter, born of the Virgin Mary at Bethlehem, is 
the Messiah, and the Son of God/ 

Here, where you are compelled to admit our 
conclusion, by the manifest sentiment, you pre- 
scribe the letters and the syllables which we are 
to produce to you : elsewhere, when conquered 
both by the letters and the sentiment, you have 
your tropes; your knots to untie, and your sober 
explanation. Every where you find something to 
oppose to the divine Scriptures : and no wonder, 
when you do nothing else but seek for something 
to oppose to them. One while you run to the 
interpretations of the ancients ; another while to 
the absurdities of reason : when neither of these 
serve your purpose, you talk about things that 
are afar off, and things that are nigh, just that 
you may avoid being confined to the teiLt imme- 
diately before you. What shall I say ? Proteus 
is no Proteus, as compared with you. But you 
cannot slip out of our hands even by these arti- 



344 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. f lces# What victories did the Arians boast, be- 
cause those letters and syllables ot^osmog were 
not contained in the Scriptures : not accounting 
it any thing, that the reality affirmed by that word 
is most decisively proved by other words. But 
let even impiety and iniquity herself judge, 
whether this be the acting of a good mind — I 
will not say of a pious one — which desires to be 
instructed. 

Take your victory then — I confess myself con- 
quered — these letters and syllables, ' the most 
excellent thing in man is but flesh/ are not found 
in the Scriptures. But see thou, what sort of a vic- 
tory thine is, when I prove that there are found 
testimonies in the greatest abundance to the fact, 
that not one portion — or the most excellent thing 
in man — or the principal part of man — is flesh; 
but that the whole man is flesh : and not only so, 
but that the whole people is flesh; and, as though 
this were not enough, that the whole human race is 
flesh. For Christ says, " That which is born of 
the flesh is flesh." Untie thy knots, imagine thy 
tropes, follow the interpretation of the ancients, 
.or turn else whither, and discourse about the 
Trojan war, that you may not see or hear the 
te^t which is before you. It is not matter of 
faith with us, but we both see and feel, that the 
whole hum an race is born of the flesh : we 
are therefore compelled to believe what we do 
not see ; namely, that the whole human race is 
flesh, upon the authority of Christ's teaching. 
Now therefore, we leave it to the Sophists to 
doubt and dispute whether the yjysf/,ovixa, 9 or 
leading part in man, be comprehended in the 
whole man, the whole people, the whole race 
of man : knowing as we do, that in the sub- 
ject, ' whole human race/ is comprehended the 
body and the soul, with all their powers and 
operations, with all their vices and virtues, with 
all their folly and wisdom, with all their justice 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 345 

and injustice. All things are flesh ; because all sc. xlii. 
things mind the flesh (that is, the things which 
are their own), and are destitute of the glory of 
God and of the Spirit of God : as Paul says in 
Rom. iii. k 

k Luther speaks as the oracles of God, when he says, c all 
things — meaning ' all persons' — all human beings — are flesh. 
— I have hinted already (see the last note) that I do not 
agree with Luther in his interpretation of this most autho- 
ritative text (John iii. 6.) on which he bottoms his whole 
argument here, as he did before. He says " That which 
is born of the flesh is flesh" means ' that which is born 
of the flesh is sinful, or ungodly, affection;' in short, is 
c wicked,' or f wickedness.' I say f flesh' means the same in 
the subject and in the predicate ; ' that which is born of man 
is man.' What this is, as to its nature, properties and qua- 
lities, must be sought elsewhere : but the next clause gives us 
a pretty good hint at these, by implying that it is of a nature 
directly contrary to that of the Holy Ghost ; " That which is 
born of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit 
is Spirit." The Scripture is, moreover, abundantly explicit in its 
testimony to what this nature is, by giving us a full and com- 
plete history of its creation and depravation, and by asserting in 
the clearest and strongest terms its total, universal, complicated, 
and pervasive villainy. Take but these four passages, to which 
scores might be added, and let them teach us ' what that flesh 
is which flesh begets, and brings forth.' " What is man, that 
he should be clean ? and he which is born of a woman, that 
he should be righteous ? Behold, he putteth no trust in his 
saints, and the heavens are not clean in his sight : how much 
more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity 
like water r" (Job xv. 14 — 16.) " Behold I was shapen in 
iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm II. 5.) 
" The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately 
wicked ; who can know it ?" (Jerem. xvii. 9.) " For from 
within, out of the heart of man, proceed evil thoughts, adul- 
teries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, 
deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolish- 
ness : all these evil things come from within, and defile the 
man." (Mark vii. 21 — 23.) — It is not therefore, that I draw a 
different testimony from John iii. 6. but I make it a step to ex- 
plicit proof, rather than explicit proof itself ; and by so doing 
cut the sinews of objection here, whilst I also preserve 
simplicity and uniformity in the interpretation of Scripture 
terms.* 

* For a more full consideration of the terms flesh and spirit, I venture to 
refer the reader to ' Vaughan's Clergyman's Appeal,' chap. iii. sect. iii. and 
chap, v. sect. ii. iv. where some account is given of the nature state of man, 
and of the sanctincation of the Lord's people, which I deem satisfactory. 



346 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART IV. 

SC.XLIII. 

Heathen 
virtue is 
God's ab- 
horrence. 



As to what you say therefore, that ' every affec- 
tion 1 of man is not flesh, but there is which is 
called soul, there is which is called spirit ; by the 
latter of which we strive after whatsoever things 
are honourable 111 — just as the philosophers strove, 
who taught that death should be encountered a 
thousand times sooner than allow ourselves in 
any base act, even though we knew that men 
would be ignorant of it, and God forgive it' — 

I reply; it is easy for a man who believes 
nothing assuredly to believe any thing, and say 
any thing. Let your friend Lucian, n not I, ask 
you, whether you can shew us a single individual 
out of the whole human race (you shall be twice 
or seven times over a Socrates yourself, if you 
please) who hath exhibited what you here men- 
tion, and say that they taught. Why do you tell 
stories then, in vain words ? Could those strive 
after honourable things who did not even know 
what honourable is? You call it honourable 
perhaps (to hunt out the most eminent example) 
that they died for their country, for their wives 
and children, and for their parents ; or that, to avoid 
belying themselves or betraying these relations, 
they endured exquisite torments. Such were 
Q. Scsevola, M. Regulus, and others. But what 
can you display in all these, save an outside shew 
of good works ? Have you looked into their 



1 Omnis affectus.'] Not merely what we commonly denote 
{ affection/ meaning ' appetite and passion :' but all that is 
liable to be moved and affected in man : ' his whole constitu- 
tion as a moral being.' 

m Quo nitimur ad honesta."] Honestum is properly opposed to 
turpe: ' placui tibi, qui turpi secernis honestum'. — Hor. It is 
the ( honore et laude dignum/ opposed to what is dishonour- 
able : the koXov of the Greeks ; something more exalted than 
the TrpiTTov, even as that w T as also more exalted than the hlicaiov. 

n See above, Part ii. Sect. xx. note x . 

° It should rather be C. Scsevola j that Seaevola who hazarded 
his life to rid his country of Porsenna ; that Regulus who dis- 
suaded from peace jvith Carthage though he went back to die 
for it. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 347 

hearts ? Nay, it appeared at the same time on sc.xliii. 

the very outside of their performance that they 

were doing all these things for their own glory; 
insomuch that they were not ashamed to confess 
and to make it their boast, that they were seek- 
ing their own glory. For it was glory burning 
them through and through, which led even these 
Romans, according to their own testimony, to do 
whatsoever they did that was virtuous; which 
same thing is true both of the Greeks also, and of 
the Jews also, and of the whole human race. 

Now, although this be honourable amongst 
men, still nothing can be more dishonourable in 
the sight of God ; nay, in his sight, it was the 
most impious and consummate sacrilege, that they 
did not act for the glory of God, neither did they 
glorify him as God, but, by the most impious 
sort of robbeiy, stole the glory from God and 
ascribed it to themselves : so that they were 
never less honourable and more vile, than whilst 
shining forth in their most exalted virtues. But 
now, how could they act for the glory of God, 
when they knew nothing of God and of his glory: 
not for that these did not appear, but because the 
flesh did not suffer them to see the glory of God, 
through the rage and madness with which they 
were raving after their own glory. Here then, you 
have the chieftain spirit (rf/suovixov), that prin- 
cipal part of man, striving after things honour- 
able — in other words, exhibiting itself as the rob- 
ber of God's glory, and the affectant of his 
Majesty — in the case of those men most of all, 
who are the most honourable and the most illus- 
trious for their consummate virtues. Deny now, 
if you can, that these men are flesh, and in a lost 
state through ungodly affection. 

Indeed I imagine that Diatribe was not so 
much offended with its being said that man is 
flesh or spirit, when she read it according to the 
Latin translation, ' man is carnal or spiritual/ 



348 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part IV. p or we lllus t grant this peculiarity amongst many 
others to the Hebrew tongue, that when it says, 
e Man is flesh or spirit/ it means the same that 
we do, when we say, ' Man is carnal or spiritual i* 
just as the Latins say, ' The wolf is a sad thing for 
the folds/ ' Moisture is a sweet thing to the 
sown corn/ or when they say, ' That man is 
wickedness and malice itself/ Thus, holy Scrip- 
ture also, by an expression of intensity, calls 
man flesh as though he were carnality itself; 
because he has an excessive relish for the things 
of the flesh, and none for any thing else : just 
as it also calls him spirit, because he relishes, 
seeks, does and endures only the things of the 
Spirit. 

She may put this question indeed, which still 
remains, ' Although the whole man, and that 
which is most excellent in man, be called flesh ; 
does it follow that whatsoever is flesh must 
straightway be called ungodly V Whosoever hath 
not the Spirit of God, him I call ungodly : for 
the Scripture declares, that the Spirit is given for 
this very purpose, that he may justify the un- 
godly . p Again/ when Christ distinguishes the 
Spirit from the flesh, by saying " That which is 
born of the flesh is flesh/' and adds, that one 
who is born of the flesh cannot see the kingdom 
of God ; it evidently follows, that whatsoever is 
flesh, the same is ungodly, is under the wrath of 

p Ut rnipium justificet.'] Luther evidently means by ''justify' 
here, ' making righteous ;' and that, as to personal character. 
I do not know whence he gets his quotation ; " believeth on 
him that justifieth the ungodly/ (Rom. iv. 5.), is said with 
quite another meaning : the nearest I can find is 1 Cor. vi. 11. 
" And such were some of you ; but ye are. . . .justified in the 
name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." 

i Cum verb."] I venture to give it this turn, because it is 
clearly a new and distinct argument which he here intro- 
duces : to call ' flesh' is to call ' wicked ;' for it is to say, 

1. that he hath not the Spirit (which alone maketh godly) 5 

2. that he is a member of the devil's kingdom. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 349 

God, and is far from the kingdom of God. Now, sc.xliv. 

if it be far from the kingdom and Spirit of God, 

it must necessarily follow that it is under the 
kingdom and spirit of Satan — there being no 
middle kingdom between the kingdom of God 
and the kingdom of Satan ; which are perpetually 
fiffhtins: ao-ainst each other. These considerations 
prove that the most consummate virtues amongst 
the heathens — the best sayings of their philoso- 
phers, and the most eminent actions of their 
citizens — however they may be spoken well, and 
may appear honourable in the sight of the world 
— are truly but flesh in the sight of God, and 
services rendered to Satan's kingdom ; that is, 
impious and sacrilegious, and in all respects 
evil. 

But pray let us for a moment suppose Dia- Conse- 
tribe's assertion to stand good, that the whole ^hlt* of 
constitution of man is not flesh ; that is, wicked : sumption 
but that part of it, which we call spirit, is honest respecting 
and sound. See what absurdity follows hence, manwirich 
not in the sight of human reason it is true ; but is not 
with reference to the whole religion of Christ, ' es ' 
and to the principal articles of the faith. For if 
the most excellent part in man be not ungodly, 
lost and damned, but only the flesh ; that is, the 
grosser and inferior affections; what sort of a 
Redeemer shall we make out Christ to be ? Shall 
we represent the worth of his most precious 
blood-shedding to be so small that it only redeemed 
the vilest part in man; whilst the most excellent 
part in man is strong of itself, and hath no need 
of Christ? Henceforth then, we must preach 
Christ, not as the Redeemer of the whole man, 
but of his most worthless part — that is, the flesh; 
whilst man is himself his own redeemer in his 
better part. 

Choose which of the two you please. If the 
better part of man is sound, it does not stand in 
need of Christ as a Redeemer. If it does not 



350 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. stand in need of Christ, it triumphs over Christ 
with a glory superior to his — as curing itself, 
which is the better part, whereas Christ cures 
only the more worthless. Then again, the king- 
dom of Satan also will be nothing ; as reigning over 
the viler part of man, whilst it is itself rather 
ruled by man, as to his better part. Thus it will 
be brought to pass by this dogma concerning the 
principal part of man, that man is exalted above 
both Christ and the devil ; that is, he will be 
made God of Gods, and Lord of Lords. — What 
becomes then of that approvable opinion, which 
affirmed that Freewill can will nothing good? 
Here, on the contrary, she contends that this same 
Freewill is the principal part, and the sound part, 
and the honest part; that which hath no need 
even of Christ, but can do more than God him- 
self and the devil can. I mention this, as. in 
former instances/ my Erasmus, that you may see 
again, how dangerous a thing it is to attempt 
sacred and divine things without the Spirit of 
God, under the rash guidance of human reason. — 
If then Christ be the Lamb of God, who taketh 
away the sin of the world; it follows that the 
whole world is under sin, damnation and the 
devil; and the distinction between principal parts, 
and not principal parts, avails nothing. For the 
world signifies men who relish worldly things in 
all parts of their frame. 5 

sc. xlv. < jf £| ie whole man, sa)s she, when even rege- 
nerated by faith/ is nothing else but flesh, what 

Luther J ' rt 7 

falsely 

r See Part i. Sect xxii. Part iii. Sect. xxxn. Part. iv. Sect. 

xx. xxxii. 

s Luther's order in the last two sections is, 1. Your praise of 
the heathens is false. C Z. Man is f flesh* ' is man is wickedness.' 
3. What would follow if your cavil ' not all' were true. — There 
is a good deal of subtilty in this part of his argument ; and we 
are ready to say ' not content with knocking down his ad- 
versary, he kicks him when he is down :' but his objections are 
solid and unanswerable. 

1 There is an ambiguity in the expression f renatus per 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 351 

becomes of the spirit which is born of the Spi- sc * XLV * 
rit ? what becomes of the son of God? what ~ 7~ 

charged. 

Authority 
fidem.' Faith is the fruit and effect of regeneration strictly of the an- 
and properly so called ■ that is, c of that act of God by his cients 
Spirit, whereby he begets the soul anew, and so makes it abused, but 
capable of spiritual perceptions, actings and sufferings.' But S 00 . * ol __ 
in the more enlarged sense of regeneration, which includes jj? qq ? 
state as well as character (what is more properly called new co ,Jtradicts 
birth, Lorn again) regeneration may be said to be the fruit of Erasmus, 
faith: " Ye are all the children of God in Christ Jesus by 
faith 5" that is, manifested to be such — visibly and acknow- 
ledgedly adopted into his family. — The child as begotten 
differs from the child as born into the world. Regeneration, 
strictly speaking, is the begetting of the child 5 speaking more 
widely, is the birth of it ; and Baptism is the sign and seal of 
this regenerate state — the sign of and the seal that we are in 
it. In its most correct view, it is the sacrament of the Resur- 
rection ; of our having died and risen again with Christ — into 
whom we have been baptized — in a figure ; of which, our 
being in the number of those, for whom and with whom he 
has died, in order that they might be raised up again from the 
dead with him and for his sake — at an appointed time — is the 
reality. By baptism therefore, the Lord's people are sealed to 
be in the state of those who have risen from the dead 5 who 
already have that which is to be had in this life of the resur- 
rection from the dead, in possessing, acting and enjoying a 
risen Spirit — and who have the pledge of God, which cannot 
lie, that they shall have the superabundant residue both in 
their person (a raised body) and in their state (partakers of 
the glory which shall be revealed.) In whatever form the 
ordinance be administered, whether by immersion, affusion, or 
aspersion, it is in effect the same teaching sign ; the laver of 
regeneration being the Lord's blood, and its application to our 
person denoting our union with him in his death and resurrec- 
tion. It is this signing-, sealing ordinance, I say, to God's 
elect, and to none else : who, when they have been called by 
the Spirit (which may be before or after — if one part of the 
sign must be future, why may not both :), are led and enabled 
either to wait upon the Lord in the receiving of it, or to look 
back to it as a benefit already received. — Hosts of objections 
will rise up, no doubt, against this testimony. Why then are 
infants baptized r Why is baptism administered to the non- 
elect ? — I am not careful to answer these questions of the 
natural man. Infant baptism however, I remark, must stand 
upon its own grounds of vindication ; and, for my own part, I am 
content with God's having commanded every male Israelite to 
be circumcised on the eighth day. — Administered to non- 
elect ! Why it has been the mystery of God from the begin- 
ning to bring out aud draw to himself his elect, amidst 



352 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. becomes of the new creature ? I should like 
to be informed about these things.' So much 
for Diatribe. — Whither, whither so fast, my 
dearest Diatribe ? What are you dreaming 
about ? You desire to learn how it is that the 
spirit in man, which is born of the Spirit of God, 
can be flesh ? O how happy and secure is this 
victory, under the flush of which you insult over 
your vanquished one, as though it were impos- 
sible that I could stand my ground here ! Mean- 
while, you would gladly make an ill use of the 
authority of the ancients, who talk about certain 
seeds of honesty being sown by nature in the 
minds of men. First of all, you may, for what I 
care, use or abuse the authority of the ancients, if 

a multitude of professing hypocrites. Enoch lived amongst 
such : Judas was one of the twelve. The meaning of the 
ordinance is not impaired by these mysterious arrangements j 
and it is just so much of shame, grief and weakness to the 
spiritual man, if he do not use and enjoy the pregnant 
sign. — I have mixed this reference to baptism with the subject 
of regeneration, not only because so mixed by the Fathers 
and by the Apostles, but because I cannot doubt that the Lord 
had a reference to it in John iii. 5. (Except a man be begotten 
by the Spirit out of water ; i. e. begotten by the Spirit in and 
through that water which is the sacramental emblem of my 
blood; he can have no part or lot in the kingdom of God) ; 
and because I consider it as so illustrative of the real nature 
of regeneration : which I cannot allow to be either character 
or state only, but must regard as, in its more enlarged sense, 
comprehending both. How simple and how sweet the view 
thus opened to us of the Lord's sacraments ! Baptism, the 
sacramental introduction of the Lord's people into the resur- 
rection state 5 and the communion of the body and blood, the 
sacrament of their continual life therein. — The phrase ( rena- 
tus per fidem" then, which both Erasmus and Luther adopt, 
is allowable as expressive of that state into which the eternally 
foreknown of God are brought, when, having already been 
regenerated in Spirit, they, by faith and calling upon God, are 
regenerated in state. In this state, they live and walk by and 
in the Spirit. — Then what has this state of theirs to do with 
the question of Freewill -, or rather, with all that has just been 
argued about man's being flesh — whatever be meant by that 
word ? He that hath been begotten, or born, of the Spirit is 
Spirit, and has the Spirit dwelling and walking in him,, and 
serveth God therein. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 353 

you please ; it is your look out what you believe, sc. xlv. 

when you believe men who dictate their own 

opinions without any authority from the word of 
God: and perhaps it is not a matter of religions 
anxiety which torments you much, what any man 
believes ; since you so easily give credit to men, 
without heeding whether what they say be certain 
or uncertain in the sight of God. — / also have my 
question to propose for information: when did I 
ever teach what you so freely and so publicly 
impute to me? Could any one be so mad as to 
say, that the man who hath been born of the Spi- 
rit is nothing but flesh? I decidedly separate 
flesh and Spirit as substances at variance with 
each other; and affirm, in unison with the sacred 
oracle, that the man who hath not been born again 
by faith is flesh : I affirm further, that the regenerate 
man is flesh, only so far as pertaineth to that re- 
mainder 11 of the flesh in him, which fighteth against 
the first-fruits of the received Spirit. — I cannot 
think you so base as wilfully to have feigned this, 
by way of exciting ill-will against me : else, what 
could you have imputed to me of a more atrocious 
nature ? But either you know nothing of my 
matters, or you seem unequal to the weight of 
the subject; by which you are so pressed and 
confounded, that you do not sufficiently remem- 
ber what you say either against me, or for your- 

u Secundum reliquias.~] Luther speaks of this remainder, as 
many other divines do, in a manner which implies that the 
work of the Spirit upon the substance of the soul in regene- 
ration is incomplete : whereas it shall receive no increase or 
alteration for ever. The body only is unrenewed, and shall 
remain so till the resurrection. The variety is in the ener- 
gizings of the within-dwelling Spirit : which, unto God's 
glory in our real good, are neither uniform nor perpetual ; and 
so give occasion to the unrenewed part of our frame, and to 
our enemies without, to gain many a transient victory over 
us. — What I have already said and referred to, about e flesh' 
and f spirit,' will serve to shew that my account of this 
remainder would differ some little from Luther's. — See above. 
Sect. xlii. notes ' and k . See also Part ii, Sect i. note f . 

2a 



354 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part IV. self. For in believing, upon the authority of the 
ancients, that some seeds of honesty are im- 
planted in the minds of men by nature, you 
again speak with a degree of forgetfulness, having 
asserted before, that Freewill can will nothing 
good. I do not know how this inability to will 
any thing good, is compatible with some seeds of 
honesty. Thus am I perpetually compelled to re- 
mind you of the point which is at issue in the 
cause you have undertaken to plead ; from which 
you are perpetually departing through forgetful- 
ness, and maintaining a proposition different from 
the one you set out with. v 
SC.XLVI. Another passage is in Jeremiah x. " I know, 
; — O Lord, that the way of man is not his ; nor is it 

x ei 2™24 * n ^* e P ower °f an y man t° wa lk and direct his 
defended, steps." This text, she says, appertains to pros- 
perity of event, rather than to the power of 
Freewill. 

Here again Diatribe confidently introduces her 
gloss at pleasure, as if she had a sort of plenipo- 
tentiary authority over Scripture. But what need 
was there of such authoritativeness in the man, to 
enable him to consider the sense and scope of 
the Prophet ? ^ It is enough, says Mr. Erasmus ; 
therefore it is so/ Allow the adversaries of the 
truth this lust for glossing, and what will they 
not gain ? Let him teach us this gloss then from 
the context, and we will believe him. On the 
contrary, I shew from that very context, that 
whilst the Prophet sees himself engaged in teach- 
ing the ungodly with so much importunity to no 
purpose, he at the same time perceives that his 
word avails nothing, unless God teach it within ; 
and that it is not at the disposal of man there- 

v Luther defends his interpretation of Isaiah xl. 6, 7- by 
1. Making Jerome and Erasmus ridiculous. 2. Maintaining' 
Isaiah. 3. Appealing to Erasmus's vain shew of candour and 
exposing it. 4. Entertaining the cavil ' not all.' 5. Repell- 
ing false eharges, and charging inconsistencies. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 355 

fore, to hear and to will good. Perceiving this, sc.xlvi. 

and alarmed at the thought of God's judgment, *- 

he begs of him to correct him with judgment, if 
he must absolutely be corrected } and that he 
may not be delivered over to the wrath of God, 
together with the ungodly, whom God suffers to 
be hardened and to continue in unbelief. 

But let us suppose however, that this passage is 
to be understood as speaking of prosperous and 
adverse events : what if this very gloss should 
most effectually subvert Freewill? This new 
evasion is invented, it is true, in order that 
persons unpractised and unskilled in falsehood 
may fancy they have received a satisfactory ex- 
planation of the text — the same sort of trick 
which is practised in the attempt to evade the 
necessity of a consequence. They clo not see 
that they are so much the more ensnared and 
entrapped by these evasions, than by the plain 
meaning of the words; so misled are they by 
these new terms ! Why, if the event of temporal 
concerns and transactions, over which man is 
constituted lord and master (Genesis i.), be not 
under our own control; how shall that celestial 
substance, the grace of God, which is dependent 
upon the will of God alone, be under our control ? 
Can the effort of Freewill obtain eternal salvation, 
when it cannot keep the printer's dagger, or 
even a hair of one's head in its place ? Have we 
no power to get possession of the creature, and 
shall we have x power to get possession of the 
Creator? Why are we so mad? For a man 
to strive after good or evil, implies by far the 
greatest degree of mastery over events ; y because, 
whichsoever of the two he be striving after, he 
is much more liable to be deceived, and has less 

x For objections to this distinction, see above, Part i. Sect, 
xxv. note \ 

y Pertinet igitur.'] More literally, ' It most of all pertains to 
events, that a man strive,' &c. 

2a2 



356 BONDAGE OF THE WILL 

part IV. liberty, than whilst he is striving after money, 

or glory, or pleasure. What an exquisite escape, 

then, hath thy gloss effected? which, whilst it 
denies man's freedom in paltry creature events, 
proclaims it in the high events of God. z As if 
you shall say, Codrus cannot pay half a crown, 
put he can pay millions of guineas. I am sur- 
prised too, that Diatribe, who has so persecuted 
that saying of WicklifPs hitherto, ' all things 
happen by necessity,' should now of her own 
accord concede, that events are necessary to us. a 

6 Besides, if you force it never so much, says 
she, that it may bear upon the subject of Free- 
will, does not every body confess that no one 
can maintain an upright course of life with- 
out the grace of God ? Still however, we strive 
in the mean while ourselves also, according to 
our ability; inasmuch as we pray daily, u O Lord 
my God, direct my way in thy sight." He who 
sues for help does not lay aside endeavour/ 

Diatribe thinks it does not signify a straw what 
she answers ; provided she be not silent, but 
say something. Having done so, she would be 
thought to have satisfied everybody; so confident 
is she in her own authority. — The thing to be 



z Creatls eventibus. divinis eventibus."] Luther has said (see, as 
at note x ), that a dominion has been given to man over the infe- 
rior creatures, in the exercise of which he would not object to 
its being said that he has Freewill. There are creature-events 
therefore, and God-events ; that is, events which are convers- 
ant with creatures only, and events which are conversant with 
€Jod also : these, in which he has to deal with creatures, are 
of small moment with respeet to those in which he has to deal 
with the Creator. Temporal prosperity is of the former ; sal- 
vation is of the latter. — I deny the justness of the distinction -, 
and must allow, that we have rather too much of the gla- 
diator in this paragraph. Luther's defence of his text is cor- 
rect j but to give his adversary another thrust when he is 
fallen, he goes into refinements which will not stand. Doubt- 
less, spiritual things are higher than temporal things, but each 
is under the sole dominion of God. 

a See Part iii. Sect. xliv. note m . 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 357 

proved was, whether we strive by means of our sect. 
own strength ; the thing she proves is, that she XLVIL 
endeavours something by praying. Is she mock- 
ing us, pray ? Is she making fun of the Papist?. ? 
He who prays, prays by means of the Spirit ; 
nay the Spirit himself prays in us. (Rom. viii. 
26.) How is the power of Freewill proved by 
the endeavour of the Holy Spirit? Is Freewill 
the same thing as the Holy Spirit in Diatribe's 
account? Are we at present discussing w T hat the 
power of the Spirit is ? Diatribe leaves me this 
passage of Jeremiah, therefore, untouched and 
unconquerable ; and only produces this gloss of 
her own brain, ' We also strive with our own 
strength ;' and Luther is obliged to believe her — 
if he pleases. b 

So again, she maintains that the saying in Prov.xvU. 
Proverbs xvi. " The preparation of the heart is defended, 
man's, the government of the tongue is the Lord's;" 
belongs also to events. 

As if we should be satisfied with this ipse dixit 
of hers, and require no other authority ! And it 
is answer more than enough surety, that, if we even 
grant this to be its meauing, which applies it to 
events, clearly the victory is mine; according to 
what I said last : since Freewill is nothing in our 
own works and events, much more is it nothing 
in the works and events of Gocl.' c 

But observe how sharp she is : c How can it be 
man's work to prepare the heart, when Luther 
affirms that every thing is done by necessity V 

I reply ; c Since events are not in our own 
power, as you acknowledge; how can it be man's 
work to bring matters to their issue ? Take for 

b Luther's order is, 1. To repel Diatribe's gloss. 2. To 
shew the folly and inconsistency of it, if admitted. 3. To 
confound Diatribes' s confusion. The proof which the text 
yields is broad and palpable, and only loses force by allowing 
that it may allow a cavil. 
c See last section. 



358 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



SECT. 
XLVIII. 

Much in 
Proverbs 
for Free- 
will. 



part iv. my answer the answer which you have given me. 

; — - Nay verily, we must work especially on this 

account, because all future things are to us uncer- 
tain : as the Preacher says, "In the morning sow 
thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine 
hand, because thou knowest not whether this or 
that, shall spring up." To us, I say, they are 
uncertain as to knowledge, but necessary as to 
event. Their necessity inspires us with that fear 
of God, which is our antidote against presumption 
and security ; whilst their uncertainty begets a 
confidence, which fortifies our minds against 
despair. 

But she returns to her old song, c that in 
the book of Proverbs many things are said in 
favour of Freewill -/ such as this, c Confess 
thy works unto the Lord/ Dost thou hear, 
says she? thy works. — That is, there are many 
imperative and conjunctive verbs in that book 
and many pronouns in the second person : for 
by such supporters Freewill is proved. As 
for instance, f confess ;' therefore thou canst con- 
fess : ' thy works;' therefore thou doest them. 
So that saying, "I am thy God," you will under- 
stand to mean, ^thoumakest me thy God/ "Thy 
faith hath made thee whole:" dost thou hear? 
" thy faith." Expound thus, ' thou makest thy- 
self to have faith/ And now you have proved 
Freewill. — I am not mocking here, but shewing 
that Diatribe is not in earnest, when pleading 
this cause. 

That saying in the same chapter, u The Lord 
hath made all things for himself; even the wicked 
for the day of evil," she absolutely moulds into a new 
shape by words of her own ; urging in excuse for 
God, that he hath not made any creature evil. d 

As if I spoke of creation, and not rather of that 
constant operation of God upon things created, by 



Prov. xvi 
4. 



d See Part iv. Sect. x. note z . 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 359 

which God actuates even the wicked; as I have sect. 
already said about Pharaoh. God makes the wicked XLVIIL 
man, not by creating evil, or an evil creature, " 
which is impossible; but the seed being corrupted 
upon which God operates, an evil man is made or 
created, not by the fault of the Maker, but through 
the corruptness of the material. 

Nor has that saying from the twentieth chapter Pwv.hU. 
any efficacy in her view, " The heart of the king 
is in the hand of the Lord; he inclineth it whither- 
soever he -kill." It is not necessary, says she, 
that he who inclines compel. 

As if we were speaking about compulsion, and 
not rather about a necessity of immutability. By- 
God's inclining of the heart is meant, not that 
sleepy lazy thing which Diatribe pretends, but that 
most efficacious operation of God, which the man 
cannot avoid or change; and by which he neces- 
sarily has such a will as God hath given to him, 
and such a will as God hurries along with his own 
motion. I have spoken to this point already. 6 

Besides, since Solomon speaks of the king's 
heart, Dia tribe thinks that this text is improperly 
drawn to express a general sentiment ; but that it 
means what Job says in another place, " He 
maketh a hypocrite to reign for the sins of the 
people." Job xxxiii. 30. At length she concedes 
that the king is moved by God to evil, but in 
some such way as this ; e God suffering the king to 
be driven by his passions, in order that he may 
chastise his people/ 

I reply; whether God permit or incline, the 
very act of permitting or inclining arises from 
the will and operation of God : because the king's 
will cannot escape the actuation of the omni- 
potent God; forasmuch as f every man's will is 

e See above, Sect. xi. note h . 

f Quia.] I should have liked qud instead of quia, if there had 
been any authority for it. — For the principle maintained, see 
above, Sect. xi. and note h . 



360 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. hurried on by him to will and to do, whether it 
be good or evil. As to my having made a general 
proposition out of the particular one about the 
king's will ; I have done so, as I imagine,, neither 
unseasonably, nor unwisely. For if the king's 
heart which seems to be especially free and to 
have lordship over others, cannot however will 
otherwise than God shall have inclined it ; how 
much less can any of the rest of men do so? And 
this same consequence would stand good, not 
only with respect to the king's will, but also with 
respect to any man's will. For if one man, how- 
ever private, cannot will before God g except as 
God inclines him, the same mast be said of all 
men. So the fact that Balaam could not speak 
what he pleased, is an evident proof, contained 
in the Scriptures, that man is not the free chooser, 
or doer, of his own law, h or work : else there 
would be no such thing as examples in the Scrip- 
tures. 1 
sect. After this, having affirmed that many testimo- 
xlix. n { eS} suc \ i as Luther collects from this book of 
Johnxv 5 Proverbs, might indeed be brought together, but 
maintain- they would be such as by a commodious inter- 
ed - pretation might be made to stand up for Freewill, 

as well as against it ; she at length adduces that 
Achillean and inevitable lance of Luther's from 



s Coram Deo.~\ Referring*, I suppose,, to the former distinc- 
tion about divine and created events ; as if there were some 
acts in which God left us at liberty. See above, Sect. xxxi. note a . 

h Sui juris. ] 4 Jus (a jubeo,, ut quidam volunt) est univer- 
sim id quod legibus constitutum est, sive naturalibus, sive divi- 
nis, vel gentium, vel civilibus.' ' The law or rule, which he 
prescribes to himself for the regulation of his conduct.' Hence 
the expression ' sui juris esse,' i. e. ' liberum esse, suique 
arbitrii.' ( Ut esset sui juris ac mancipii respublica.' — Cic. 

1 Luther defends his quotations from Proverbs, and withdraws 
the chorus from Erasmus's old song, by 1. Necessity does not 
preclude human agency, but quickens it. 2. They are impera- 
tive and conjunctive verbs. 3. Nature of God's making and 
operating, in the wicked. 4. The king's heart furnishes an 
* a fortiori/ but any man's heart will do. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 361 

John xv. " Without me ye can do nothing." SE ^J- 
&c. &c. &c. XL1X ' 



I too commend the skill of this exquisite orator 
of Freewill, in teaching us, first of all, to shape 
the testimonies of Scripture by convenient inter- 
pretations, as seemeth good to our own minds, so 
that they may in reality stand up for Freewill; 
that is, may make out, not what they ought to do, 
but what we please ; and then pretending to have 
such a great dread of one in particular which she 
calls Achillean, that the stupid reader may hold 
the rest in exquisite contempt when this has been 
vanquished. But I shall look sharp after this 
magniloquous and heroic Diatribe, to see what 
force it is of hers, by which she gets the better of 
my Achilles ; when she has not yet hit a single 
common soldier — no not even a Thersites — -but has 
destroyed herself most miserably by her own 
weapons. 

So then, she lays hold of this little word what 
c nothing/ and slays it by the aid of many words 'nothing' 
and many examples ; dragging it to this result by 
a commodious interpretation, that c nothing * may 
be the same as small and imperfect : that is, she 
holds forth in other words what the Sophists have 
heretofore taught thus on this passage — "without 
me ye can do nothing ;" that is, nothing per- 
fectly. Such is the power of her rhetoric, that 
she contrives to make this gloss, which has now 
for a long time been stale and mouse-eaten, 
appear like something new ; and insists upon it 
in such a way, that you might think she has been 
the first to bring it forwards, that it never was 
heard of before, and that it is little less than a 
miracle which she is exhibiting in the production 
of it. Meanwhile, she is quite careless and 
thoughtless about the text itself, and its fore and 
after context ; from which the knowledge of it is 
to be sought : not to mention that her aim Js to 



means. 



362 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. shew, by so many words and examples, how this 
— word ' nothing ' may be taken here for ' some- 
thing small and imperfect;' as if, forsooth, we 
were disputing about what might be — when the 
thing to be proved is, whether it ought to be 
taken so. The whole of her magnificent inter- 
pretation therefore amounts but to this, if to any 
thing, that this passage of John's is made uncer- 
tain and ambiguous: and what wonder, when it 
is Diatribe's one and alone object, to make out 
that the Scriptures are every where ambiguous, 
lest she should be compelled to use them ; k that 
the testimonies of the Fathers are decisive, that 
she may have liberty to abuse them. Strange 
reverence for God this, which makes His words 
useless, and man's words profitable ! 
sect. L. But the finest thing of all is to see how con- 

sistent she is with herself. c Nothing' may be 

taken for ' a little.' And in this sense, says she, 
it is most true that we can do nothing without 
Christ : for he speaks of Gospel fruit, which be- 
fals none but those who are abiding in the Vine ; 
that is, Christ. 

Here, she confesses herself that fruit befals 
none but those who abide in the Vine ; and this 
she does, in that self-same commodious interpret- 
ation by which she proves that c nothing ' means 
the same with c small and imperfect.' Perhaps 
we ought also to interpret the adverb c not ' com- 
modiously, so as to signify that gospel fruit befals 
men out of Christ in some measure, or in a small 
and imperfect degree ; hereby announcing that 
ungodly men, without Christ, with the devil reign- 
ing in them and fighting against Christ, may yield 



k Uti. abuti.~\ Ut. ' To use according to its real nature.' 
Abut. ' To use contrary to the nature,, or first intention of a 
thing;, whether for the better or worse.' The Scripture is 
authority ; she will not use it. The Fathers are not authority 5 
she will use them as though they were. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 363 

some portion of the fruits of life ; in other words, sect. l. 
the enemies of Christ may act for Christ. But — "— 
no more of this. 

I should like to be informed here, how heretics Advantage 
are to be resisted, who shall avail themselves of g^J° 
this law every where in their interpretations of 
the Scriptures, and insist upon understanding 
'nothing* and 'not* to denote an imperfect sub- 
stance. As ' without him was nothing made f 
that is, ' very little/ 4 The fool hath said in his 
heart there is no God;* that is, c God is imper- 
fect/ ' He hath made us and not we ourselves ;* 
that is, we made ' a very little * of ourselves. And 
who can number the passages of Scripture in 
which the words 'nothing* and 'not* occur? 
Shall we say here, the suitableness of the inter- 
pretation is to be looked at. What heretic does 
not account his own interpretation suitable ? 
What this, I suppose, is an untying of knots, to 
open such a window of licence to corrupted minds 
and deceiving spirits ! 1 To you who make havoc 
of the certainty of sacred Scripture, I can readily 
believe that such a licence of interpretation would 
be commodious : but to us who are labouring to 
settle the consciences of men, nothing can arise of 
a more inconvenient, a more hurtful, a more pes- 
tilent nature than this commodiousness which you 
recommend. Hear thou therefore, mighty con- 
queress of Luther's Achilles ; except thou shalt 
have proved that 'nothing' in this place, not 
only may but must be taken for 'a little;' thou 
shalt get nothing by all this multitude of words 
and of examples, but that thou hast been fighting 
fire with dry stubble. What have I to do with 
thy 'maybe;' when thou art required to prove 
that it ' must be ?' Until thou shalt have done 
this, I stand fast in the natural and grammatical 

1 Corruptis. fallacibus.~] Cor. expresses the state of the 
receiver ; fal. the wilfulness of the false prophets : we have 
the tinder ready,, and they strike the spark. 



364 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. signification of the word, laughing at thy armies 

no less than at thy triumphs ! 

What is now become of that approvable 
opinion, which declares that Freewill can will 
nothing good ? Bat perhaps the principle of 
commodious interpretation hath arrived here at 
last, making out that c nothing good' means 
' something good/ by an altogether unheard of 
art both of grammar and of logic which explains 
6 nothing' to mean the same with ' something :' 
what logicians would account an impossibility, 
since they are contradictory? What becomes of 
the assertion, that we believe Satan to be the 
prince of this world, reigning according to Christ 
and Paul, in the wills and minds of men, which 
are his captives and serve him ? Will that roar- 
ing lion forsooth, the implacable and restless 
enemy of the grace of God and of man's salvation, 
suffer it to come to pass, that man, who is his 
slave and a part of his kingdom, should endea- 
vour after good, by any motion towards it, at 
any moment, that he may escape his tyranny? 
Would he not rather incite and urge him, both 
to w T ill and to do what is contrary to grace, with 
all his might ? The righteous, who act under the 
influence of the divine Spirit, hardly resist him, so 
as to will and to do what is good; such is his 
rage against them. 

You who feign that the human will is a thing 
placed in a free medium, and left to itself, have 
no difficulty in feigning at the same time, that 
the effort of the will is towards either side; 
because you imagine both God and the devil to be 
afar off as mere spectators of this mutable and 
free will, and do not believe that they are impel- 
lers and agitators of this bond will of ours, each 
of them most determined warriors on the side on 
which he acts. Believe this fact only, and our 
sentiment stands in full strength, with Freewill 
laid prostrate at its feet: as I have already shewn. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 365 

For, either the kingdom of Satan is a mere no- sect.li. 
thing in men, and so Christ is a liar : or, if his 
kingdom be such as Christ describes it to be, 
Freewill is nothing but Satan's captive packhorse, 
which cannot have freedom, unless the devil be 
first of all cast out by the finger of God. 

Thou perceivest from hence, my Diatribe, what 
it is, and of what power, which thy author in 
detestation of Luther's positiveness of assertion is 
wont to say, ' Luther drives on his cause with a 
mighty force of Scripture, but all his Scripture is 
pulled to pieces by one little word?' m Who does 
not know that the whole body of Scripture might 
be pulled to pieces by one little word? We knew 
this well enough, even before we had ever heard 
the name of Erasmus. But the question is, whe- 
ther it be satisfactory that the Scripture should be 
pulled to pieces by a little word ? The matter in 
dispute is, whether it be rightly pulled to pieces 
thus, and whether it must be pulled to pieces thus. 
Let a man direct his view to this point, and he 
will see how easy it is to pull the Scriptures to pieces, 
and how detestable is Luther's positiveness. But 
the truth is, he will see that it is not a parcel of 
little words, nor yet all the gates of hell that can 
do any thing towards accomplishing this object. 

Let us then do what Diatribe cannot for her Luther 
affirmative, and, though we have no business to do prove f the 
so, let us prove our negative ; extorting by force 
of argument the concession, that the word 
' nothing' here not only may, but must be taken to 
signify not <a little,' but what it naturally 
expresses. This I will do by arguments additional 
to that invincible one which has already given me 
victory; namely, that words ought to be kept to 

m Uno verbulo.~\ Alluding to this little word e nothing,' I 
suppose. All Luther's force, he would say, is in this Achillean 
lance ; which we break by our interpretation of the word 
' nothing.' 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

their natural meaning, unless the contrary shall 
~~ have been demonstrated:" which Diatribe neither 

natureTof e nas done, nor can do here. — First then, I extort 
the case, this concession from the very nature of the case. 
It has been proved by testimonies of Scripture, 
which are neither ambiguous nor obscure, that 
Satan is by far the most powerful and most crafty 
prince of the princes of this world; as I have 
said : under whose reign the human will, which 
is now no longer free, and its own master, but the 
slave of sin and Satan, cannot will any thing but 
what this prince of hers shall be pleased to let her 
will. Nor will he suffer her to will any thing 
good : albeit, if Satan did not rule her, sin itself 
whose servant man is, would be a sufficient clog 
upon her to prevent her willing good. p 

Secondly, the very sequel of the discourse — 
which Diatribe in her valour despises, q although 
I had commented upon it very copiously in my 
assertions — extorts the same concession. For 
Christ goes on thus in John xv. " If a man abide 
not in me, he is cast out as a branch, and he 
withereth, and they gather him up, and cast him 
into the fire, and he burnetii." These words, I 
say, Diatribe acting the part of a most profound 
rhetorician has passed over ; in hopes that this 
transition would be incomprehensible to such 
unlettered readers as the Lutherans. But you 

n See above, Sect. iii. 

° Longe potentiss. et caUidiss. mundi.~\ There is a 'little ambi- 
guity in the expression j but he clearly means to compare the 
devil with other earthly Princes. 

p Luther speaks as others speak ; leaving it to be imagined, 
that sin is a substance, and has a real and positive existence. 
(See above, Sect. xi. note h .) The more correct statement is, 
' the human soul is itself a substance sinful and devilish ; and 
would remain so — willing according to its nature — if Satan and 
his agency were withdrawn from it. 

i Fortiter contemnit.~] The taunt is obscure ; but I under- 
stand it to insinuate, that Diatribe has a good deal of that 
' better part of valour, which is discretion.' 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 367 

perceive that Christ, becoming himself the inter- sect.li. 

preter of his own simile of the branch and the — 

vine here, most expressly declares what he would 
have to be understood by the word c Nothing f, 
namely, that a man out of Christ is cast forth and 
withereth. And what else can this being cast 
forth and withering mean, but that he is delivered 
over to the dominion of the devil, and is continu- 
ally made worse ? But to grow worse and worse 
is not to have power, or to endeavour. The 
withering branch is made more and more ready 
for the burning, the more it withereth. If Christ 
had not thus opened and applied this simile, 
nobody would have dared to open and apply it 
so. It is established therefore, that the word 
f Nothing ' must be taken literally here, according 
to its natural import/ 

Let us now look also into the examples by 3. By re- 
which she proves that ' nothing" is in some places fating Dia- 
taken for ' a little f in order to shew, that in this amplest" 
part of her argumentation also Diatribe is nothing, 
and effects nothing. Yet, if she had even proved 



r I should rather rest the conclusion upon the scope and 
train of the parable,, than upon the interpretation of the figures 
in any one verse : a good general rule for the interpretation of 
parables. We may overstrain parts ; but we cannot be wrong 
in seizing the general outline, and maintaining the broad prin- 
ciple which is illustrated 5 where that can be distinctly ascer- 
tained. — Perhaps I should not interpret this parable just as 
Luther does. I consider it as a representation of the visible 
church 5 exhibiting two sorts of members, fruitful and unfruit- 
ful. The fruitful only are Christ's true ones 3 and their fruitful- 
ness is dependent altogether upon a real, continued and unob- 
structed union with himself. It is with reference to their con- 
tinuance in him, that this nothingness is spoken of. Should they 
be cut off from him — suppose them to have been never so fruit- 
ful — (thus the parable speaks) their fruitfulness would cease — 
entirely cease . Both the end and the way require that the nothing 
be an absolute nothing. — Luther cannot state the result of non- 
union, or dis-union, more awfully than I would do ; but I 
should question the parable's setting this out with the minuteness 
which he assigns to it, and do not see it necessary to the con- 
clusion he is sustaining. It is quite enough that the- disunited 
branch is a cast-away waiting for the burning. 



368 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. something here, she would have effected nothing ; 

such a perfect nothing is she, in all her parts and 

in all her means. 3 ^ It is a common saying (she 
avers) that a man does nothing, if he does not 
obtain what he seeks after; but still, the man who 
endeavours frequently makes some way towards 
his object/ 

I reply, I never heard that this is a common 
saying ; you take the liberty of imagining so. 
Words (so far as they give names to things 1 ) must 
be considered according to the subject matter, and 
with relation to the intention of the speaker. Now 
a man never calls that ' nothing/ which he endea- 
vours when in action; nor does he speak of his 
endeavour when he talks about ' nothing/ but of 
the effect : this is what a man is looking at, when 
he says ' that man does nothing, or effects nothing/ 
that is, e he has not reached his point, he has not 
obtained.' — Besides, if your instance proves any 
thing (which however is not the case), it makes 
more for me than for you. For this is the very 
point I am maintaining, and wishing to get proved; 
that Freewill does many things, which are but 
nothing in the sight of God. u What is the use 
of her endeavouring, if she does not gain what 
she seeks ? — So that, let Diatribe turn which way 
she will, she founders and confutes herself, as is 
usually the case with advocates pleading a bad 
cause. 

Thus again, she is unhappy in her instance 

s Per omnia et omnibus modis.'] Per omn. the several parts 
of her argument. Omn. mod. the materials of each. Her 
arguments would not prove her point, if they were sound 5 but 
they are not so. 

1 Verba, ut vocant.~\ Ut voe. i. e. ' quatenus vocabula sunt, 
sive dictiones quibus res singula? vocantur, aut voce efferuntur.' 

u Coram Deo.'] Erasmus says, nothing means a little ; and so 
men speak of their performances. Luther replies, this is said 
of the effect, not of the act: but if it be said of the act, this 
proves for me : doing, he does not ; for in the sight of God 
his work is nothing. Coram Deo, in a former instance (see 
above, Sect. xxxi. note a ), referred to God's presence as an agent j 
here refers to it as a spectator. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 369 

which she adduces from Paul, "Neither is he sect. 
that planteth any thing, nor he that watereth, but LIL 
God that giveth the increase." What is of very ] ... 
little moment, and useless of itself, he calls 
c nothing ;' says she. 

Who is this? What you, Diatribe, call the 
ministry of the word useless of itself, and of small 
moment; that ministry which Paul extols with 
such great praises both every where else, and 
especially in 2 Cor. iii. where he calls it the 
ministration of life and the ministration of glory ? — 
Again you are guilty of neither considering the 
subject matter, nor the intention of the speaker. 
With respect to giving the increase, the planter 
and the water er are nothing ; but with respect to 
planting and watering they are not ' nothing:' it 
being the chief work of the Spirit in the church of 
God to teach and to exhort. Paul means this, 
and his words very clearly express this. But grant- 
ing that this inapplicable example also applies, 
it again, like the other, will stand on my side. 
For I am maintaining, that Freewill is nothing — 
that is, useless — of itself, as you explain this text, 
before God: for it is of this kind of existence 
that we speak, well knowing that the ungodly 
will is e a something/ and not e a mere nothing. 3 y 

So again, with regard to that saying in 1 Cor. xiii. l Cor. xiii. 
"If I have not charity, I am nothing." I do not 2 * 
see why she adduces this example, except it be 
that she is in quest of number and multitude, or 
thinks that we are in want of arms with which to 
dispatch her. For the man who has not charity 
is truly and strictly 6 nothing' before God. I 

v Merum nihil.'] Erasmus applies this text to the act of 
ministering the word ; whereas it belongs to the effect of that 
ministry. But be it, that it illustrates the agency of the free 
will under the ministry, without grace : this agency is nothing 
in the sight of God, though not an absolute nothing in itself.— 
This conclusion however is drawn from a double misapplication 
of the text : it is act, instead of effect ; and it is act of the 
hearer, not of the speaker. 

2b 



370 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part IV. maintain the same tiling with respect to Freewill. 

So that this example also stands up for me against 

Diatribe herself, unless it be that Diatribe is even 
jet ignorant what our ground of battle is. x We 
are not speaking of an existence of nature ; but 
of an existence of grace, as they call it. We 
know that Freewill performs certain natural acts ; 
that she eats, and drinks, and begets children, and 
rules the house. So that Diatribe might have 
forborne to mock us with that nonsensical saying, 
which is like the ramble of a delirium, 'that a man 
cannot even sin, without Christ/ if we insist upon 
this word 6 nothing f whereas even Luther admits 
that Freewill has a power of committing sin, 
though it hath no other ! — The wise Diatribe, you 
see, must have her joke even upon a serious sub- 
ject. — What we affirm is, that man without the 
grace of God still remains under the control of 
the general omnipotency of God, who performs, 
who moves, who carries away all things by a 
necessary and infallible course ; but what the man 
so carried away does, is "nothing" — that is, 
availeth nothing before God, and is accounted 
nothing but sin. Thus — with regard to a being 
of grace — he is nothing who hath not charity. — 
Why then does Diatribe, after confessing of 
her own accord that we are in this place treating 
of evangelical fruit, which is not produced without 
Christ, here in an instant turn aside from the 
question at issue, begin a strange song, and cavil 
about natural operations and human fruits ? 
Why— but that a man destitute of the truth, is 
never any where consistent with himself ? y 
John iii. So again, that saying in John iii. u A man can 

* Quo loco pugnemus.'] The same with ' status causae ;' the 
question at issue. 

J We are reasoning about ' existence of grace/ or c existence 
before God/ and her argument is about mere natural existence, 
which is absolute ; when she has even avowed the distinction 
which makes the difference. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 371 

receive nothing, except it be given him from sect. 
heaven." LIL 

John speaks of a man, who was something 
assuredly already, and denies that this man 
receives any thing ; that is to say, the Spirit with 
his gifts : for it is of this, and not of nature, that 
he speaks. 2 He had no need of Diatribe's instruc- 
tions, surely, to teach him that the man already 
had eyes, nose, ears, mouth, mind, will, reason, 
and all the other properties of a man. Perhaps 
Diatribe thinks that when the Baptist spoke of a 
man, he was so mad as to be thinking of Plato's 
chaos, or Leucippus's vacuum, or Aristotle's 
infinite, or some other e nothing/ which was at 
last to be made 6 something * by a gift from 
heaven ! What, it is bringing examples from 
Scripture, purposely to make sport in this way 
upon so weighty a subject ! — To what purpose is 
it then, that she brings forwards such a redun- 
dancy of material, by way of teaching us that fire, 
escape from evil, effort towards good, and the 
rest, proceed from heaven ; as if any man knew 

z De hoc enim.~\ We shall see hereafter, that Luther is mis- 
taken in his view of this text ; but the conclusion remains : 
the ' nothing' is distinct from natural endowments. — Plato's 
chaos is that c rudis indigestaque moles,' out of which, f being 
itself eternal/ he taught that the eternal God, according to an 
eternal draught or model in his own mind, had, in his own 
appointed time, created the world. — Leucippus of Abdera, 
a. c. 428. was the first who invented the famous system of 
atoms and a void, which was afterwards more fully explained by 
Democritus and Epicurus. The void was nothing, till the infi- 
nity of eternal atoms rushed into it by a blind and rapid 
movement, and thus settled into a world. — Aristotle's c infi- 
nite ' is his ( first moveable ' eternally put into motion by his 
* first Mover,' and made to be what it is, at its one first projection, 
by Him. There is not much of essential difference therefore 
between Plato's chaos, Leucippus's vacuum, and Aristotle's 
infinite : they are each a name for some supposed state in 
which the world that now is subsisted antecedently to its pre- 
sent one. — For some account of Plato, see Preface ; see also 
Part ii. Sect. v. note u , where I have followed Seneca's account 
of his term ( idea.' — For some account of Aristotle, see Part iv. 
Sect, viii.note r . 

2b2 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



part IV. n ot, or denied this ? I am speaking of grace; or, as 
she has herself expressed it, of Christ and gospel 
fruit : but she meanwhile chatters away about 
nature, that she may get time, protract the cause, 
and throw dust in the eyes of the unlearned 
reader. With all this however, she not only 
fails in adducing a single example of ' nothing ' 
taken for ' a little/ which is what she undertook 
to do ; but even manifestly betrays herself to be 
one who neither knows, nor cares, what Christ is, 
or what grace is, or how grace differs from nature : 
a distinction which the very rudest of the Sophists 
knew, and beat out in their schools by commonest 
use. a Nor is she in the least aware, at the same 
time, that all her examples make for me and 
against herself. Even this saying of the Bap- 
tist — (e A man can receive nothing except it be 
given him from heaven " — proves that Freewill is 
nothing. This is the way to conquer my Achilles — 
Diatribe puts arms into his hands with which to 
destroy her in her nakedness and defencelessness. 
Thus it is, that those Scriptures, by which the 
inflexible dogmatist Luther drives all before him, 
are scattered by a single wordling. b 

After this she details a great many similes ; by 
which all she does is to carry off the foolish 



SECT. 
LIII. 



Diatribe's 
troop of 



a Detriverunt.~\ A figure taken from threshing, or more pro- 
perly from treading out the pure grain with the feet : " Thou 
shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the 
corn." Possibly he may have a squift at the name of Diatribe, 
in his use of this term ; c even the Sophists have trodden the 
floor of their schools ' to better purpose than she. See Intro- 
duction, p. 3, note a . 

b Luther maintains his Achillean lance, by 1 . Exposing the stale- 
ness, unaptness, and unauthorizedness of the evasion which 
Diatribe proposes. 2. The dangerous conclusions which may 
be extorted from her concessions. 3. Impossibility of realizing 
what is thus ascribed to Freewill. 4. c Nothing' cannot mean 
c a little ' in this text. 5. Does not in any of the texts which 
she adduces. 

c Enumerat implies f the number in full tale' — an ostenta- 
tious display of numbers. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 373 

reader, as her manner is, into foreign matters, sect. 

• T TfT 

herself meanwhile quite forgetting her cause. As 
for instance ; God preserves the ship it is true, $ im \\ es 
but still the mariner conducts it into port ; so that naught, 
the mariner does something. It is a distinct work f nda s amst 
forsooth, which this simile ascribes to God on the what she 
one hand — that of preserving — and to the mariner ought to 
on the other, that of guiding into port. Besides, ^^ " 
if it proves any thing, it proves that the whole 
work of preserving is God's ; the whole work of 
guiding, the seaman's. But still, it is an exqui- 
site and apt simile ! d 

So the husbandman carries the productions of 
the earth into his barns, but God has given them. 
Here again, distinct works are ascribed to God 
and to man ; unless she chooses to make the hus- 
bandman creator at the same time, and so 
even joint-giver of the fruits. But let the same 
works moreover be assigned to God and to man 
by these similes, what is the amount of them, 
but that the creature cooperates with the operat- 
ing God ? Are we now disputing about coopera- 
tion then ? Are we not disputing, rather, about 
the several force and operation of Freewill ? 
What a flight is this ! The orator was to have 
spoken about a palm tree, but he has talked 
only of a gourd. A cask was to be turned, 
why comes there out a pitcher? 6 

I also know, that Paul works together with 
God in teaching the Corinthians ; himself preach- 
ing without, whilst God teaches within: where the 
work of the two operators is a different one. In 
like manner, he also works together with God, 
when he speaks in the Spirit of God.: and the 
work is the same. For this is what I assert and 
maintain, that God, when he works without the 

d There is a double failure in the comparion : the works are 
two ; and the agent in each, one. 

e Hor. Art. Poet, v, 23. — I do not find any classical allusion 
for the gourd. 



374 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part IV. confines of the grace of his Spirit, worketh all in 
all, even in the wicked ; seeing that he, the alone 
maker of all things, doth also alone move, drive 
and carry away all things, by the motion of his 
omnipotency: which they cannot escape or change, 
but do necessarily follow and obey ; each accord- 
ing to the measure of its own power, which God 
hath given to it. So true is it, that even all wick- 
ednesses f do work together with him. Again; 
when he acts by the Spirit of grace in those whom 
he hath made righteous — that is, in his own king- 
dom — he in like manner drives and moves them ; 
and they — seeing that they are new creatures — do 
follow and work together with him; or rather, as 
Paul says, they are ledhy him. — But this was not 
the place for these things. Our question is not, 
what we can do when God worketh, but what we 
can do, of ourselves ; that is, whether, when now 
created out of nothing, we can do or endeavour 
any thing, through that general motion of omnipo- 
tency, towards preparing ourselves for the new 
creation of his Spirit? This question should have 
been answered, instead of turning us aside towards 
another. For we answer this question, and our 
answer is this : like as man, before he is created 
to be a man, does nothing and endeavours 
nothing towards making himself a creature ; and 
afterwards, when he has been made and created, 
does nothing and endeavours nothing towards 
continuing himself in being as a creature; but 
each of these events takes place by the alone will 
of the omnipotent might and goodness of God, 
who creates and preserves us without ourselves, 
but does not work in us without ourselves — 
seeing we are those whom he hath created and 
preserved for this very end, that he may work 
in us, and we may work together with him ; whe- 
ther this be without the confines of his kingdom 

f Omnia etiam impia.'] < All wicked substances : ' men and devils. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 375 

by the acting of his general omnipotence or within sect. 
the confines of that kingdom by the special power ' 

of his Spirit — so (we go on to say) man, before 
he is renewed to become a new creature of the 
kingdom of the Spirit, does nothing, endeavours 
nothing, towards preparing himself for that re- 
newal and kingdom ; and afterwards, when he 
has been created anew, does nothing, endeavours 
nothing, towards continuing himself in that king- 
dom; but the Spirit alone doeth each of these things 
in us, both creating us anew without ourselves and 
preserving us when so created — as James also 
says, " Of his own will begat he us by the word 
of his power, that we might be the beginning of 
his creation;" speaking of the renewed creation. 2 
Still he does not work in us without ourselves ; 
seeing we are those whom he hath created anew 
and doth preserve, to this very end, that he might 
work in us, and that we might work together with 
him. h Thus, he preaches by us, has pity on the 
poor by us, comforts the afflicted by us. But 
what is hereby ascribed to Freewill ? rather, what 
is left to it, but c nothing ;' absolute nothing? 

Read the Diatribe in this part for five or six inconsist- 
leaves together, and you will find that all she does enc d y *" d f 
is, first by lugging in similes of this sort, and after- Diatribe- 
wards by citing some of the most beautiful passages takes U P 
and parables from PauPs writings and from the j^tand 
Gospels, to teach us that innumerable texts (as she pursues 
expresses it) are to be found in the Scriptures, ar^eTi^ 
which declare the cooperation and helping gifts inversion. 
of God. Now, if I collect from these testimonies, 

s Renovata creatura.'] Sometimes called ( the new creation ;' 
but with less propriety : this new is all made out of the old ; 
which e new * does not imply, but f renewed ' does. 

h Cooperaremw\~\ The cooperation in both cases consists in 
our acting concurrently with God, according to our nature : 
God, by his own agency, calls out our faculties such as they 
are, whether natural or renewed, into act and exercise : it is by, 
and not without, our faculties that he 'moves, drives and 
hurries us along/ 



376 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. ' 

part iv. that man can do nothing- without the helping 
grace of Cod, therefore no works of man are 
good ; she, on the contrary, using a rhetorical 
inversion, concludes 'Nay rather, there is nothing 
which man cannot do with the assistance of God's 
grace, therefore all man's works may be good. 
Well then, as many passages as there are in the 
word of God, which make mention of divine 
assistance ; so many are there which maintain 
Freewill. Now there are such without number. 
I have conquered therefore, if the question be 
decided by the number of testimonies/ Thus 
she. — But do you think Diatribe was quite sober, 
or of sound mind, when she wrote these words ? 
For I will not impute it to malice and wickedness 
in her (except so far as she might have a mind 
perhaps to destroy me by a perpetual tiresome- 
ness), that she preserves such a perfect consist- 
ency throughout her whole performance, always 
handling other topics than those which she pro- 
posed to treat. However, if she has delighted 
herself with talking nonsense on so grave a sub- 
ject, it shall be my pleasure, in return, to expose 
to public scorn the absurdities which she has so 
wantonly promulgated. 1 

First then, I neither make it a question, nor am 
ignorant, that all the works of man may be good, 
if they be done with the help of God's grace. 
Secondly, I neither make it a question, nor am 
ignorant, that there is nothing which man cannot 
do, with the help of God's grace. But I cannot 
sufficiently admire your negligence, that having 
commenced to write upon the power of Freewill, 
you should proceed to write on the power of 
divine grace: having done which, as* if all were 
stocks and stones, you are audacious enough to 

1 Publice tradueere.~] A peculiar use of traduc. ' to expose to 
ridicule or dishonour, to disgrace.' So f traducit avos.'— -Juv. viii. 
17. f Rideris, multbque niagis traduceris.' — Martial. e Miseraia 
traducere calvam/ — Id. 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 377 

say publicly, that Freewill is established by those sect. 

passages of Scripture which extol God's helping _ 

grace. Not only have you the audacity to do 
this, but even to sing your own paean, k as a most 
glorious, triumphing conqueror ! I now know 
experimentally, through this word and deed of 
yours, what Freewill is, and what her power. 'She 
is mad/ What can it be in you, pray, which speaks 
thus; save this very Freewill ? 

But, mad as you are, hear your own conclusions. 
Scripture extols the grace of God ; therefore 
Scripture proves Freewill. Scripture extols the 
help which is derived from God's grace ; there- 
fore Scripture establishes Freewill. What art 
of logic is it pray, from which you have learned 
these conclusions ? Why might it not be just the 
reverse ? Grace is preached, therefore Freewill 
is exploded. The help which is afforded by grace 
is extolled, therefore Freewill is destroyed. For 
to what end is grace conferred ? Is it, that the 
pride of Freewill, who is sufficiently strong of her- 
self, may frolic and sport at a Bacchanalia, 1 
tricked out with grace, as a sort of superfluous 
ornament ? — Well then, I also will draw an infer- 
ence by inversion ; and, though confessedly no 
rhetorician, yet with a more solid rhetoric than 
yours. As many passages as there are in the 
divine Scriptures which make mention of divine 
help ; so many there are which exclude Freewill. 
Now there are such without number. If the ques- 
tion is to be decided by numbers then, I have con- 
quered. For wherefore have we need of grace ; 

k Encomion.'] A Greek derivative ; whence our English 
word e encomium ' also : applied peculiarly to the laudatory 
songs which were sung to the praise of the conqueror amidst 
the tumultuous revels of his Triumph. — See Introd.p. 4. 

1 Feasts in honour of Bacchus ; which were not only drunken 
bouts, but scenes of proud display, to the praise of the glory of 
man. They imitated the poetical fictions concerning Bacchus -, 
putting on fawn skins, crowning themselves with garlands and 
persQnating men distracted. 



378 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part iv. and wherefore is the help of grace conferred; but 

because Freewill can do nothing, and, as this 

very Diatribe has affirmed, in that approvable 
opinion of hers, cannot will good? When grace 
therefore is extolled, and the help of grace is 
proclaimed, the impotenc}^ of Freewill is in the 
same instant proclaimed. This is that sound con- 
clusion, and that legitimate consequence, which 
not even the gates of hell shall overthrow. 
sect. Here I make an end of maintaining my own texts 
against Diatribe's confutation of them, that my 
book may not grow to an immoderate size : the 
rest (if there be any worth noticing) shall be con- 
sidered in the assertion of my own sentiment. 
As to what Erasmus repeats in his Epilogue, that, if 
our sentiment stand, there are never so many pre- 
cepts, never so many threatenings, never so many 
promises all made vain; there is no place left either 
for merit, or demerit, for reward, or for punish- 
ment — then again, that it is difficult to defend the 
mercy, or even the justice of God, if God con- 
demns those who sin necessarily — and other dis- 
agreeable consequences, which have so moved the 
greatest men as to overthrow them — 

I have given an answer to all these considera- 
tions already. Nor do I either tolerate, or receive, 
that golden mean which advises, with good inten- 
tion, as I am willing to suppose, that we should 
concede a very small degree of power to Freewill, 
in order that the inconsistency of Scripture, and 
the forementioned inconveniences, may the more 
easily be removed. The truth is, this golden mean 
neither assists the cause which it is meant to 
serve, nor gets us any forwarder in the solution of 
difficulties. Unless you yield the whole and every 
thing to Freewill, as the Pelagians do, there still 
remains inconsistency in the Scriptures, merit and 
reward are excluded, the mercy and justice of God 
are abrogated, and all those inconveniences which 
we aim to avoid by allowing a very small and 



TEXTS AGAINST FREEWILL MAINTAINED. 379 

inefficacious power to Freewill remain in force ; s ^ct. 
as I have already shewn. We must therefore come * 

to the extremity of denying Freewill altoge- 
ther, and referring every thing to God ; and 
then we shall find that the Scriptures are not 
inconsistent with themselves, and that our in- 
conveniences are either removed or rendered 
tolerable. 

There is one thing, however, which I depre- 
cate, my Erasmus, and that is, your persuading 
yourself that I plead this cause with more of zeal 
than of judgment. I cannot endure that I should be 
charged with such hypocrisy as to think one thing 
and write another : nor is it true what you write 
of me, that I have been carried forwards by the 
heat of self-defence to the point of now for the 
first time denying Freewill wholly, whereas I had 
hitherto ascribed something to it. You will not 
shew this something, I well know, in any of my 
publications. There are theses and questions of 
mine extant, in which I have been perpetually 
asserting, up to this very hour, that Freewill is a 
nothing, and a matter of mere name; such was 
the term which I then used about it. Overcome 
by truth ; provoked and compelled by disputa- 
tion ; thus I have been brought to think, and thus 
I have been brought to write. That I have discussed 
the matter with a considerable degree of vehemence, 
if it be a crime, is a crime to which I plead 
guilty : nay, it is my marvellous joy, that this tes- 
timony should be borne to me by the world, in the 
cause of God. May God himself confirm this tes- 
timony in the last day ! So shall none be then more 
blessed than Luther ; who is so greatly extolled 
by the testimony of his own age as one that hath 
not pleaded the cause of truth sluggishly or deceit- 
fully, but with a high degree, it may be with an 
excess of vehemence. Then shall I happily escape 
that judgment spoken of by Jeremiah : Cursed is 



380 BONDAGE OF THE WILL; 

part iv. the man who cloeth the work of the Lord negli- 

gently.™ 

Now if I shall also seem a little severe upon 
your Diatribe, you must pardon me. It is not 
from ill-will to you that I am so : but I have been 
stirred up to it, by the conviction that you were 
mightily depressing this cause, which is the cause 
of Christ, by your authority; whilst your know- 
ledge and the matter you put forth 11 are not such as 
to entitle you to any superior consideration. — 
And then, who has such a command of temper 
every where, as not in some places to grow warm? 
Your desire of moderation has made you almost 
cold as ice in this treatise; but you not unfre- 
quently contrive to hurl fiery and exceeding 
bitter darts, so as to seem absolutely virulent to 
your reader, except he regard you with peculiar 
favour and indulgence. But all this has nothing to 
do with the cause : we ought to forgive these 
asperities mutually, seeing we are but men, and 
nothing different from humanity is found in us.° 

m Negligenter.~\ Our version says deceitfully, but has neg- 
ligently in the margin. 

u Re ipsd.~\ ' The material which he worked up :' as dis- 
tinguished not only from his name, but from the dress of 
language which he put upon it. 

° Nihil humani alienum.'] ' Homo sum, nihil a me humani 
alienum puto,' has furnished Luther with a sentiment which 
requires a little correction. As a called child of God he had 
surely something in him more than human. — He only means 
to make full confession of his humanity — and that another 
name for sin of all kinds. 



381 



PART V. 

FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE, 



SECTION I. 

How Luther proposes to conduct the fight. 



We are now arrived at the last part of this 
treatise, in which, according to promise, I ought 
to lead out my own forces against Freewill. But 
I shall not produce them all; for who could do 
this in a small work, when the whole Scripture is 
on my side, every point and letter of it. Nor 
is there any need to do so, since Freewill has 
already been vanquished and laid prostrate by 
a twofold victory; vanquished, by my having 
proved that all is against her, which she thought 
was for her ; vanquished again, by my having 
shewn that all those proofs which she had a mind 
to confute remain still invincible. Besides, even 
if she were not already vanquished, it were 
enough that she should be prostrated by one or 
two lances. For what need is there, when an 
enemy has been slain by some single weapon, to 
pierce him through and through as he lies dead, 
with many more. I shall therefore be short now, 
if the subject will allow me; and out of the vast 
variety of armies, which I might lead forth into 
the field, I shall summon two general officers 
only, with a select portion of their legions : these 
are Paul and John the Evangelist. 

Paul, writing to the Romans, thus enters sectii. 

upon his argument in behalf of the grace of God 

against Freewill. " The wrath of God, says he, f™^ 



382 BONDAGE OF THE WILL 

part v. is revealed from heaven upon all ungodliness and 
unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in 
Sentence unrighteousness." Jn these words you hear a 
upon Free- general sentence pronounced upon all men, that 
wllL they are under the wrath of God. What is this 

else, but that they are worthy of wrath and punish- 
ment? He assigns as the cause of this anger, that 
they do nothing but what is worthy of wrath and 
punishment ; that all, forsooth, are ungodly and un- 
just, and hold the truth in unrighteousness. Where 
now is that power of Freewill which endeavours 
after something good ? Paul represents it to be 
deserving of the wrath of God, and passes sen- 
tence upon it as ungodly and unjust. Nov/ that 
which is ungodly, and deserves wrath, endea- 
vours and hath power, not for grace, but against 
it. a 

Luther will be laughed at here for his careless- 
ness, as not having examined Paul's text suffi- 
ciently; and some will say, that Paul does not 
speak of all men, nor of all their endeavours, in 
this passage, but only of those who are ungodly 
and unjust: of those, as his words express it, 
who detain the truth in unrighteousness; and so 
it does not follow that all are of this character. 
Upon which I remark, that with Paul it is the 
same thing to say, c upon all ungodliness of men,' 
as to say, 6 upon the ungodliness of all men ;' 
for Paul hebraizes almost every where : b so that 
his meaning is, ' all men are ungodly and unjust, 
and detain the truth in unrighteousness; there- 
fore all men are worthy of wrath.' Besides, it is 
not the relative that is used in the Greek text — 

a Luther's argument is, ' Paul declares that wrath is 
revealed upon " all men." If so, it is revealed upon Free- 
will. — His labour therefore is to shew that this text means 
so much. — That it does mean so much is shewn, 1. From the 
very words. 2. From the preceding context. 

b Ebralcatur .] I should not say ' hebraizes' here \ for it is 
Greek as well as Hebrew — perhaps nearly all languages — thus 
to speak : grammarians call it Hyperbaton. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 383 

of those who — but the article ; as thus, c The SECT n - 
wrath of God is revealed upon the ungodliness 
and injustice of men, detaining as they do the 
truth in unrighteousness/ — So that this is a sort 
of epithet applied to all men, ( That they detain 
the truth in unrighteousness :' just as it is an 
epithet when it is said, e Our Father which art in 
heaven;' which might otherwise be expressed 
thus, c Our heavenly Father/ or ' Our Father in 
the heavens/ For the expression is used to dis- 
tinguish them from those who believe and are 
godly. 

But let these suggestions be frivolous and vain, 
if the very thread of Paul's argument do not con- 
strain and prove them. He had said just before, 
" The Gospel is the power of God, unto salvation, 
to every one that believeth ; to the Jew first and 
also to the Greek." The words here used are not 
obscure or ambiguous : c To the Jews and to the 

c An epithet -which implies the reason of the Lord's con- 
duct 5 and which I should venture to render by c for that they 
detain, &c.' in Latin ' utpote qui ;' ' seeing that they are those 
who, &c.' — I do not agree with Luther in the distinction 
which he here understands the Apostle to make : I consider 
him to be speaking strictly of all men ; even as he is proceed- 
ing to shew that all men without exception are in their nature 
state chargeable with holding the truth in unrighteousness. 
It is the nature state of man, the state of man without the 
Gospel, of which the Apostle treats ; till he comes to the 
twenty-first verse of the third chapter. The true connection 
is, I shall be glad to come to Rome ; for I am not ashamed of 
the Gospel ; for that Gospel is the power of God unto salva- 
tion -, that salvation which all men want ; which all men want 
because the wrath of God is revealed upon all men for their 
ungodliness ; for their ungodliness and unrighteousness, be- 
cause they hold e the truth' in unrighteousness ; they hold 
the truth in unrighteousness because God has made him- 
self manifest to them, but they have not dealt with him 
according to that manifestation. His great charge therefore, 
which he goes on to maintain against man universally — both 
Jew and Gentile — considered as yet without the preached 
Gospel — is, that they hold the truth in unrighteousness. — 
This account of the context does not at all invalidate Luther's 
application of the text. All he wants is c< all men :" and this 
he clearly has. 



384 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part v, Greeks— that is, to all men— the Gospel of the 
power of God is necessary, in order that be- 
lievers may be saved from the wrath which is 
revealed/ When he declares the Jews — who ex- 
celled other nations in righteousness, in the law 
of God, and in the power of Freewill — to be, 
without any difference, both destitute of the 
power of God and in need of it, that they may 
be saved from the revealed wrath — making that 
power necessary to them — does he not reckon 
them to be under wrath, pray ? What men will you 
assume to be unobnoxious to the wrath of God, 
when you are compelled to believe that the 
greatest men in the world — the Jews and the 
Greeks for instance— are not so ? Agam ; whom 
will you except amidst those Jews and Greeks, 
when Paul embraces them all without any dis- 
tinction under one name, and subjects them all to 
the same sentence? Is it to be supposed, that 
there were no individuals in these two most emi- 
nent nations/ who strove after honesty? 6 Were 
there none that endeavoured, to the uttermost of 
Freewill ? Yet Paul does not heed this at all ; 
he sends all under wrath ; he pronounces all un- 
godly and unjust. Must we not suppose, that 
the rest of the Apostles also did, by a like sen- 
tence, cast all the other nations also, and each 
individual of them in his lot, as one mass of 

d Istis duabus."] I should rather understand the Greeks in 
this connection to be the representatives of the Gentile world, 
selected as the most favourable or enlightened specimen of it j 
Jew and Greek, like Jew and Gentile, comprehending the 
whole human race. Luther understands Paul to express that 
nation in its individuality, and argues by induction thence to 
the rest of the nations. — The frequent use of this antithesis — 
Jew and Greek — favours my view : but Luther's argument is 
not affected by the distinction. His refined Greek is included 
amongst my promiscuous Gentiles. 

e Qui ad honesta niterentur.~\ Referring to Erasmus's noble 
defence of the heathens and their philosophers, as such great 
sticklers and striversfor the e honestum.' See Part iv. Sect, xliii. 
note m . See also Part ii. Sect. viii. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 385 

condemnation under the curse and dominion of sect. in. 

this wrath ? 

This passage of PauPs therefore stands boldly, A pubiish- 
and insists that Freewill, or the most excellent p^°s Pel 
thing in men, even in those who are most emi- want of 
nent, even in those who are endowed with the k n ™ led g e 
law, justice, wisdom and all virtues, is ungodly turai man, 
and unjust, and deserves the wrath of God : else as well as 
PauPs argument falls to the ground ; whereas if power? 
it stand, his division, by which he distributes 
salvation to those who believe the Gospel and 
wrath to ail the rest, leaves no man in the mid- 
way between them. He represents believers as 
righteous, unbelievers as ungodly, unrighteous, 
and subject to wrath. For all he means to say 
is, ' the righteousness of God is revealed in the 
Gospel, that it is of faith :' therefore all men are 
ungodly and unrighteous ; seeing it would be 
foolish in God to reveal righteousness to men, 
which they either knew, or possessed the seeds of 
already. But seeing that God is no fool, and jet 
he reveals a righteousness of salvation; it is 
manifest that Freewill, even in the chiefest of 
men, not only has nothing and can do nothing, 
but does not even know what is just in the sight 
of God. Unless you shall choose to say, that the 
righteousness of God is not revealed to those 
chiefest of men, but only to the baser sort; in 
opposition to PauPs boast, that he is a debtor to 
the Jew and to the Greek, to the wise and to the 
unwise, to the barbarian and to the Greek. f So 
then Paul, comprehending all men without ex- 
ception in one mass here, concludes that all of 
them are ungodly, unjust, and ignorant of righte- 
ousness and faith ; so far are they from being 

f The allusion is to Romans i. 14. — I do not find any text in 
which he speaks of himself as debtor to Jews and Greeks. 
Luther seems to have confounded the fourteenth verse with 
the sixteenth, and with some expressions in Rom. ii. 1 Cor. i. 
Galat. iii. Coloss. iii. 

2 c 



386 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART V. 



SECT IV. 

Experi- 
ence con- 
firms 
Paul's ar- 
gument. 
Freewill 
neither 
conceives 
the truth, 
nor can 
endure it. 



able to will or to do any good thing: a firm 
conclusion from the premise, that God reveals a 
righteousness of salvation to them, as being igno- 
rant and sitting in darkness — why then of them- 
selves they are ignorant. Now those that know 
not a righteousness of salvation are assuredly 
under wrath and damnation; and cannot extri- 
cate themselves therefrom through their igno- 
rance, or even endeavour to be extricated. For 
what endeavour can you make, if you know not 
what, where, whither, or how far you are to 
endeavour. 

Fact and experience agree with this conclusion. 
Shew me a single individual out of the whole 
race of mortals, though he be the most holy and 
righteous of all men, who ever conceived that 
this is the way to righteousness and salvation — 
forsooth to believe in Him, who is at the same 
time God and man ; who has died for the sins of 
men, and who has risen again, and is seated at the 
right hand of the Father — or who ever dreamed of 
this wrath of God, which Paul here declares to 
be revealed from heaven ? Look at the Jews, 
continually taught as they have been by so many 
miracles, by so many Prophets ; what do they 
think of this way ? Not only have they declined 
accepting it, but they even hate it, to such a 
degree that there is not a nation under heaven 
which has persecuted Christ more atrociously 
unto this very day. And yet who would dare to 
say that there hath not been a single individual 
in such a multitude of people, who hath cultivated 
his free will, and endeavoured to effect something 
by its power ? How comes it then, that all men 
try after something different from this, and that 
the most excellent of the most excellent of men 
have not only neglected to cultivate this method 
of righteousness, yea, and been ignorant of it ; 
but, when now it has been published and re- 
vealed, have repelled it with the most consum- 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 387 

mate hatred, and have been eager to destroy it ? sect. iv. 

So that Paul, in 1 Cor. i. declares this way to be 

to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Gen- 
tiles foolishness. 

Now, since he makes mention of Gentiles and 
Jews indiscriminately, and since it is certain that 
the Jews and the Gentiles are the chief people 
under heaven ; it is at the same time certain, that 
Freewill is nothing but the chiefest enemy of 
righteousness and of man's salvation ; because it 
cannot be, but that some amongst these Jews and 
Gentiles have acted and endeavoured with the 
uttermost power of Freewill; and yet with this 
very Freewill have done nothing but wage war 
against grace. Go now, and say that Freewill 
endeavours after good, when goodness and righte- 
ousness itself is a stumbling-block and foolishness 
to her ! Nor can you say that this saying per- 
tains to some, but not to all. Paul speaks indis- 
criminately of all, when he says, " to the Gentiles 
foolishness, and to the Jews a stumbling-block;" 
excepting none but those that believe. " To us, 
says he ; that is, to the called and sanctified ; he 
is the power and wisdom of God." He does not 
say, e to some Gentiles, to some Jews/ but sim- 
ply, c to the Gentiles and to the Jews who are not 
of us' — making a division, which is very plain, 
between the believing and the unbelieving, and 
leaving not a single individual in the midway 
between the two. Now we are talking about 
Gentiles who have not the grace of God : Paul 
says that the righteousness of God is foolishness 
to them, and they abhor it ! So much for this 
laudable endeavour of Freewill after good. s 

s Luther's account of this text is, 1. The words are a testis 
mony. 2. This testimony is confirmed by (1.) the preceding 
context (2.) fact and experience. — I deem him mistaken in 
his view, both of the text and context. (See above, note c .) The 
text does not refer to ' the truth' as preached by the Gospel, 
neither does it make any division or exception. It is the 

2c2 



388 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



part v. Again; see whether he does not himself ad- 
duce the very chiefest of the Greeks as examples 



sect. v. 

Paul ex- 
pressly 



nature state of c all men' that is here described, and described 
as a reason for Paul's willingness to preach the Gospel at 
Rome, or any where. Luther was misled, possibly, by the 
word ' truth ;' " who hold the truth in unrighteousness ;" as if 
it must necessarily mean the Gospel. What, is there no teacher 
of truth but the Gospel ? and is ' the truth' identical with the 



Gospel 



The truth" is either ' the substance of God,' * or 



' the doctrine of that substance' — what states it out ; and con- 
sequently, what states out or displays any part of this — so far as 
it does state this out — may in this inferior sense (I call doctrine 
of or about the reality inferior to the reality itself) be 
called ' the truth.' Now some of the invisible things of God 
were thus shewn, or stated out, in creation ; and are shewn 
by what we call the works of nature (that is, works of God in 
creation as distinguished from those of super-creation or re- 
demption.) So that those who had not the Gospel might still 
be charged with holding the truth in unrighteousness : they 
had it, and did not act it. — That this is Paul's reference and 
meaning here, appears from what follows. He goes on to say, 
(f Because that which may be known of God is manifest in 
them j for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisi- 
ble things of him from the creation of the world are clearly 
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his 
eternal power and Godhead : so that they are without excuse." 
He then sets out the conduct of the Gentiles under this know- 
ledge, having thus previously shewn, that if they sinned, it 
was without excuse. — Luther is guilty here of the very error 
which he charges upon Erasmus in Part. iv. Sect, xxx., that of 
assuming parallelisms without proof : because Jew and Greek 
are opposed in 1 Cor. i., and also here, he assumes that it 
must be with just the same reference and scope in each ; 
whereas it is there the rejecting infidel, here the un-evangelized 
neglecter and contemner of God, that is the subject of re- 
mark. — Still the testimony against Freewill is entire. Even 
the conclusion from the sixteenth verse, and from the seven- 
teenth verse, is not abated : " The Gospel is the power of 
God unto salvation to every one that believeth ; to the Jew 
first, and also to the Greek 3" therefore both Jew and Greek 
needeth salvation — therefore they neither liave, nor know it 
by Freewill. i( Therein is the righteousness of God revealed 
from faith to faith 5" therefore righteousness is not known 
without it — is not known by Freewill 5 it is by faith — and 

* I do not forget that the Lord Jesus Christ is hoth personally and mysti- 
cally called the truth ; but if this title be examined, it will be found that 
He has it, in both these regards, sulordinately ; --as the grand Displayer, 
Declarer, Word, and Glory of God the Father — the created image of the 
Uncreated Reality. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 389 

of Lis assertion, when he says that the more wise sect. v. 

of them were made foolish, and their heart was 

darkened : also that that they were made vain by ™™^ st th e f 
their reasonings; that is, by their wily disput- theGreeks, 
ations. 11 and afte o r - - 

What, does he not here lay his hands upon aemnsX 
what is highest and most excellent amongst the Jewsindis- 
Greeks, when he lays hold of their reasonings ? j™: 
These are their highest and best thoughts and 
opinions, which they accounted solid wisdom. 
But this wisdom, which he elsewhere calls foolish 
in them, 1 he here calls vain; and says, that 
with much endeavouring it got from bad to 
worse : so that at length their heart was darkened, 

that faith is not of Freewill,, but opposed to it. — But what says 
the text itself in its grammatical sense as led to and supported 
by a just view of the context ? ' The wrath of God is revealed 
against all men in their nature state, for that they hold the 
truth in unrighteousness : they manifest themselves to be 
what they are — children of wrath and curse, through original 
sin and guilt — by blinding themselves to that display of God 
which is made by the visible, and otherwise sensible, things of 
his hand.' 

h Luther does not quote the words in the order in which we 
have them in our version, and in which they stand in the ori- 
ginal text. " Because that, when they knew God, they glo- 
rified him not as God, neither were thankful : but became vain 
in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and 
changed the glory of the uncorruptible God, &c." — I doubt the 
propriety of Luther's distinction here between the wiser of 
them, and the rest of the nation. He appears to have understood 
the words ' (pdo-KOPTes eJimc aocpolS as expressing those who 
said they were wise amongst them. But there is nothing par- 
titive in the form here. It is a description applied to the persons 
of whom he had spoken in the preceding verse, and of whom 
he continues to speak in the following verses. The whole 
nation, which Avas a refined and philosophical nation, boasted 
itself of its wisdom. The philosophers led the way in much 
of the idolatry and sin, but the people followed them j and 
it is of the whole, inclusively but not exclusively of the philo- 
sophers, that the Apostle delivers his testimony. Luther's 
argument, however, is not affected by this distinction ; he only 
wants to have it secured that the greatest and best of their 
community are comprehended in the censure. 

1 1 Cor. hi, 18—20. 



390 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

pautv. and they worshipped idols, and performed the 
monstrous acts which he records in the follow- 
ing verses. k If the best endeavours and per- 
formance, then, in the best of the Gentiles be evil 
and wicked; what do you think of the remaining 
multitude? being, as they were, even a worse sort 
of heathens. For neither here again does he 
make any difference between the better sort; 
whilst without any respect of persons he con- 
demns their search after wisdom. Now, when 
the very act or endeavour is condemned, the 
endeavourers, whosoever they be, are condemned 
also, although they may have done what they did 
with the uttermost might of Freewill. Their very 
best effort, I say, is declared to be faulty ; how 
much more the persons employed in it ! 

Presently he in like manner rejects the Jews 
also without any distinction, as being Jews in 
the letter and not in the spirit. u Thou, by 
the letter and circumcision, dishonourest God," 
says he. And again ; u For he is not a Jew who 
is a Jew openly, but who is a Jew secretly." — 
What can be plainer than this division? The 
outside Jew is a transgressor of the law. But 
how many Jews were there, think you, who had 
no faith, men of the greatest wisdom, devotion 
and honesty, who strove after justice and truth 
with the greatest earnestness of endeavour ? 
Just as he often bears them record, that they have 
a zeal for God, that they follow after the righte- 
ousness of the law, that they are labouring day 
and night to obtain salvation, that they live 
blameless ! 1 And yet they are transgressors of the 

k Sequentia monstra, quce.'] The form is ambiguous ; it might 
express that their horrific abominations were the natural con- 
sequence of their idolatries : which is true,, though I do not 
consider him as affirming it. The form as I have rendered it, 
though not grammatical, is common. 

1 Quod sine quereld vivantJ] Ambiguous — might mean with- 
out a murmur — but seems clearly to refer to such passages as 
Philipp. iii. 6. Luke i. 6. — Luther's representation of these 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 391 

law, because not in spirit Jews, but even obsti- sect.vi. 

nate in their resistance to the righteousness of 

faith. What remains then, but that Freewill 
is the worst when it is best, and the more it 
endeavours the worse it is made. The words 
are clear, the division is one which admits of 
no doubt, there is not any thing which can be 
controverted. 

But let us hear Paul himself in the character Paul's epi- 
of his own interpreter. Making a sort of epi- lo s ue . 
logue m to his argument, in chap. iii. he says, h^meL! 8 
"What then? do we excel them? By no means. ing. 
For we have charged 11 both Jews and Greeks 
with being all under sin." 

Jews requires chastening : they yielded but an outward observ- 
ance to the law, either in its ceremonial, or in its moral 
requirements. They did not really fulfil the commandment 
any more than they entered into the spirit of the ritual. The 
real Jew, the spiritual Israelite, was enlightened by the Holy 
Ghost to see, understand, receive, use and enjoy Christ in 
both, by faith • having faith bestowed upon him, by an exercise 
of grace which was distinct from and beyond his covenant. 
(See above, Part iii. Sect, xxviii. note v .) But the others were 
transgressors of the law, not because they had not faith : ' ' For 
the law is not of faith ; but the man that doeth them shall live 
in them." (Galat. iii. 12.) One of the objects proposed by the 
law was to make them superabounding transgressors (Rom. 
v. 20.) ; and they were constituted such, not by lack of faith 
in Christ, but by lack of spiritual obedience to its spiritual 
requirements. Luther confounds Law and Gospel here : the 
spirit-faith, of Abraham with the /eJfer-morality of Moses ! It 
suits his view of the Apostle's argument 5 but that view is 
incorrect. (See above, Sect. ii. note c .) The Apostle is shew- 
ing that the law-having Jew is no better than the uncove- 
nanted Gentile : iC but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy cir- 
cumcision is made uncircumcision." (Rom. ii. 25.) 

m Velut epilogum faeiens.~\ Epil. ' Postrema pars orationis 
qua congregantur et repetuntur ea, quae dicta sunt j Latine 
peroratio, cumulus, conclusio : ab eVA-eV/w, insuper dico, dictis 
addo, repeto.' 

n Causati sumus.~] TrporfriacxajtieOa. — We say, proved j but Lu- 
ther is more correct, as 'appears both from the etymology of 
the word and from the discourse which follows : irpoaii. ante 
causam affero ,• ante arguo. Most commentators however, and 
Sleusner amongst the rest, assign a sense to it like ours; al- 
though this be the only place in the New Testament where the 



392 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

partv. What is become of Freewill now? All Jews 

and Greeks, says he, are under sin. Are there 

any tropes, or knots here ? What can a qualified 
interpretation, in which the whole world should 
join, avail against this sentence which is so plain? 
He who says ' all' excepts none. He who lays 
it down that they are under sin ; that is, servants 
of sin, leaves nothing good in them. But where has 
he preferred this charge that all the Jews and 
the G entiles are under sin ? Nowhere else, save 
where I have shewn that he does so ; that is, 
when he says, " The wrath of God is revealed 
from heaven upon all ungodliness and unrighte- 
ousness of men." In the words which follow he 
proves this by experience; for that they, being 
displeasing to God, were subjected to so many- 
vices, being convicted as it were by the fruits of 
their ungodliness, that they will and do nothing 
but evil. He then enters into judgment with the 
Jews separately, charging the Jew with being a 
transgressor of the letter; and this he in like 
manner proves by their fruits, and by experience : 
" Thou preachest that man should not steal, and 
stealest. Thou abhorrest idols, and committest 
sacrilege ;" excepting none, unless they be in 
spirit Jews. Nor have you any outlet of escape 
here, by saying, ' Although they be under sin, 
still what is best in them, as reason and will, has 
endeavour towards good:' for, if good endeavour 
be remaining in them, his assertion that they are 
under sin is false. For when he specifies Jews 
and Gentiles, he by that mention comprehends 
whatsoever is in Jews and Gentiles : unless you 
would invert his words, and suppose him to have 

word occurs. Paul enters forthwith into proof 5 which looks'as 
if he considered what had preceded as little more than laying a 
charge. — Some MSS. read the simple verb yTtaa. which Luther 
seems to have followed. 

Velutfructibusimpietatisconvicti^] Their abandonment of God, 
under which they did such vile things, proved what they were, 
with respect to God, who had been provoked to give them up. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 393 

written, ' The flesh of all Jews and Greeks'— that sec. vn. 

is, their grosser affections — ' are under sin/ But 

the wrath of God, which is revealed from heaven 
upon them, will condemn their whole substance ; 
except they be justified by the Spirit : and this 
would not be so unless their whole substance 
were under sin. 

But let us see how Paul proves his sentiment Pauljusti- 
from the Scriptures ; whether the words are more fied m his 
to the point as we read them in Paul, than as we qu ° ai ° 
read them in their own places. " As it is written, 
says he ; for there is none righteous, no not one ; 
there is none that understandeth : there is none 
that seeketh after God. They are all gone out 
of the way; they are together become abomina- 
ble; there is none that doeth good ; no, not one." 
And the rest. 

Let who can give me a commodious interpret- 
ation here ; let who dares invent his tropes ; 
complain that the words are ambiguous and ob- 
scure, and defend Freewill against these severe 
condemnations. Then will I also willingly yield 
and recant, and myself become a confessor and 
assertor of Freewill. It is clear these things are 
said of ail men; for the Prophet introduces God 
looking forth upon all men, and pronouncing this 
sentence upon them. Thus he speaks in Psalm 
xiv. " The Lord looked forth from heaven upon 
the sons of men, to see if there were any that 
understandeth or seeketh after God. But they 
are all gone out of the way, &c." And Paul pre- 
vents the Jews from thinking that these things do 
not belong to them, by asserting that they do espe- 
cially belong to them. " We know, says he, 
that whatsoever the law saith, it saith unto them 
that are under the law." He meant the same, 
where he said ; " To the Jew first, and also to the 
Greek." p 

p That I deny : here he speaks of Jews only ; there, by 
the combination of the two names he comprehended all men. 



394 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part v. You hear therefore, that all the sons of men, 

all who are under the law — that is, Gentiles as 

well as Jews — are in the judgment of God such 
as be unjust, do not understand, do not seek after 
God — no, not even one of them — but all go out of 
the way, and are unprofitable. I suppose now, that 
amongst the sons of men, and those who be under 
the law, are numbered those also who are the 
best and most honourable ; those who by the 
power of Freewill endeavour after what is honour- 
able and good, and those whom Diatribe makes 
her boast of, as having the sense and the seeds of 
honesty implanted in them : unless, peradventure, 
she maintain that those are sons of angels ! q 

The very force of the argument consists in its exclusiveness. 
The Jews would say, those Scriptures do not belong to us, but 
to the heathens. Nay, says he, they are addressed to you : 
<e Whatsoever the law saith, it saith to them that are under 
the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world 
may become guilty before God." Do not excuse y ourselves ; 
it is meant for you chiefly. Why should that be spoken to you, 
which belongs to others, but not to you? Your excuse therefore 
cannot be admitted. — It is a common and current mistake 
that the law was given to every body : given to Adam in cre- 
ation, and through him to the whole race. But this is apocry- 
phal, and not canonical Scripture. It was never given but to 
the Jews, that is, to the church ; the elect and covenanted 
nation of Israel : which was for its hour (a space of fifteen 
hundred years) the visible church (even as the whole com- 
munity of professed Christians is that church now) ; which 
was the type of the church of the first-born — the true church — 
and in which the several and individual members of that same 
church — the people of God during that period existent in the 
flesh — were chiefly, if not exclusively, gathered into realized 
union with Christ. — Here at least, it is plain that the Apostle 
distinguishes between the two parts of mankind — Jews and 
heathens — by means of this badge. If the rest of mankind 
be supposed to be dealt with according to this law, and as 
though they were under it ; tins must be by a tacit reference 
to it in the divine mind, not on the ground of any positive and 
express enactment which had given it to them : in which they 
are plainly differenced from the Jews, who are here the subjects 
of remark. 

i My objection with respect to the law does not affect the 
universality of the charge. Paul is dealing with a Jewish 
objector : with respect to the guilt of the heathens no question 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 395 

How can those endeavour after good then, who sec.vii. 
are all universally ignorant of God, and neither 
care for, nor seek after him ? How can those 
possess a power which is profitable for good, who 
all turn away from good, and are altogether un- 
profitable ? Do we not know what this meaneth — 
to be ignorant of God, not to understand, not to 
seek after God, not to fear God, to turn aside 
out of the way, and to be unprofitable ? Are not 
the words most plain, and do they not teach that 
all men are both ignorant of God and despise 
God ; and then, as the next step, turn aside to- 
wards evil, and are unprofitable for good ? We 
are not talking now about ignorance in seeking 
food, or about contempt of money; but about 
ignorance and contempt of religion and piety : an 
ignorance and contempt which, beyond all question, 
are not seated in the flesh, and in the inferior and 
grosser affections, but in those highest and most 
excellent powers of man in which justice, piety, 
the knowledge and the reverence of God ought to 
reign ; that is, in the rational faculty and in the 
will — and so, in the very power of Freewill itself; 
in the very seed of honesty, or in the very heart 
of that which is most excellent in man. 

Where art thou now, my Diatribe, who before 
promisedst, that thou woulclest willingly agree, as 
concerning the most excellent thing in man, that 
it is flesh — that is, ungodly — if it should be 
proved by Scripture. Agree to this now there- 
fore, hearing as you do, that the most excellent 
thing in all men is not only impious, but ignorant 
of God, a contemner of God, turned towards 
evil, and unprofitable as to good. For what is it 
to be unjust, but that the will, which is one of the 
most excellent things in man, is unjust? What 
is it to have no understanding of God and of 

is entertained : the Scriptures which he quotes have esta- 
blished the guilt of the Jews also. He has therefore made good 
his charge, that f all men' hold the truth in unrighteousness. 



396 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part v. good, but that the understanding, which is another 

of the most excellent things in man, is ignorant 

of God and of good ; that is, blind to the know- 
ledge of godliness ? What is it to be gone out 
of the way, and to be unprofitable, but for men 
not to have any power in any part of them — and 
least of all in those parts of them which are most 
excellent — to do good, but only to do evil ? 
What is it not to fear God, but for men in all 
parts of them — and especially in those better parts 
of yours — to be despisers of God ? Now to be de- 
spisers of God is to be at the same time despisers 
of all the things of God ; for instance, of the words, 
works, laws, precepts, and will of God. Now 
what can the understanding dictate that is right, 
when she is herself blind and ignorant ? What 
can the will choose that is good, when she is her- 
self evil and unprofitable ? Nay, what can the will 
follow after, when the understanding dictates 
nothing to her, save the darkness of her own 
blindness and ignorance ? If the understanding 
then be in a state of error, and the will in a state 
of averseness, what good can the man either do 
or attempt ? 
sec. vni. But some one may perhaps venture upon a 

sophistical distinction, and say, that, although the 

The Pro- w j|j ^ urn aside and the understanding be igno- 

phet s con- ~ ~ 

demnation rant in action, the will notwithstanding is able 

includes t endeavour, and the understanding to get know- 

weHasact. ledge, by their own powers respectively: seeing 

we have power to do many things which we do 

not however actually perform, whilst our question 

forsooth is about power, not performance. 

I reply ; the words of the Prophet include both 
act and power; and it is the same thing to say 
6 Man does not seek after God/ as it would be to 
say c Man cannot seek after God :' an assertion 
which may be collected hence ; i If there were a 
power or force in man to will good — seeing he is 
not suffered to rest, or take his pastime, through 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 397 

the impulse of the divine omnipotency, as I have sec.viii. 

shewn above" — it could not be, but that this power 

were moved towards something, or at least in some 
one thing, and were displayed by some sort of use. 
This however is not the case; because God looketh 
down from heaven, and seeth not even one who 
seeks after him,or endeavours. It follows therefore, 
that this power which endeavours, or is willing 
to seek after God, is nowhere to be found; but 
rather all men go out of the way. Again ; if 
Paul be not understood to speak of want of 
power as well as want of act, his argument would 
avail nothing. His whole bent is to prove grace 
necessary to all men. Now if men could begin 
any thing of themselves, grace would not be 
necessary. But as it is — since they cannot — 
grace is necessary to them. So then Freewill, you 
perceive, is quite eradicated by this passage, and 
nothing of goodness or honesty is left in man; 
he being declared to be unrighteous, ignorant of 
God, a despiser of God, averse from him, and 
unprofitable in his sight. The Prophet is a pretty 
strong antagonist, therefore, in his own text as 
well as under Paul's : allegation of him. — Nor is 
it a small matter, when man is said to be igno- 
rant of God, and to despise Him : these are the 
fountains of all wickednesses, the sink of sin, yea, 
the very hell of evil. What evil will be left un- 
done, where there is ignorance and contempt of 
God ? In a word, the empire which Satan has 
in men could not have been described in fewer or 
fuller words, than by his calling them ignorant 
and despisers of God. In this is included un- 
belief; in this, disobedience ; in this, sacrilege ; 
in this, blasphemy towards God ; in this, cruelty 
and want of compassion towards our neighbour; 
in this, the love of self pervading all things both 
divine and human. 

r See above, Part iv. Sect. xi. 



398 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART V. 

SECT. IX. 

Paul's big 
words in 
Rom. iii. 
19, 20. 
insisted 
upon. 



But Paul goes on to testify that he is speaking 
of all men, and especially of the best and most 
excellent of men; 5 saying, u That every mouth 
may be stopped, and all the world may become 
guilty before God. Because by the deeds of the 
law is no flesh justified before him." 

How is every mouth stopped, pray, if there 
still remains a power in us, by which we can do 
something ? For a person may say to G od, ' It 
is not an absolute nothing which is here : here is 
something which you cannot condemn ; seeing it is 
what you have your own self given me, that it might 
be able to do something. This at least shall not 
be silent, nor shall it be guilty before thee. If 
this power of Freewill be whole, and can do some- 
thing, it is false that the whole world is guilty, or 
under charge of guilt before God; t since this power 
is no small thing, nor is it in a small part of the 
world, but is in all the world, a most excellent 
possession held by all in common, whose mouth 
ought not to be stopped. On the other hand, if its 
mouth ought to be stopped, then must it, together 
with the whole world, be criminal and guilty be- 
fore God. But with what right shall it be called 
guilty, except it be unrighteous and ungodly; 
that is, worthy of punishment and vengeance ? 
Let her look to it, pray, by what explanation 
this power of man's is absolved from the guilt 
with which the whole word is charged at the suit 

s I object, as before, to Luther's interpretation of this text : 
it is the Jews of whom he is speaking, not of the best and 
most excellent of men generally. These testimonies are 
borne to, and concerning Jews, that they also may have their 
mouths stopped. Of the Gentile mouths being stopped there 
could be no question, and was none with the Jews ; though 
they shifted off their own charges from themselves to others. 
But the argument, again, is not affected by this distinction : 
the whole world is declared guilty, which is all he wants. 

1 Deo obnoxius seu reus.'] v7t6£iko<$ rui 6ew. Obnox. in this 
distinction expresses e liable to charge.' Reus, 'one actually- 
arraigned.' YttoS. r. 0. comprehends the two, ( one charged 
with crime at the suit of God.' 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 399 

of God, u or by what art it is excepted from being sect.ix. 

enclosed within the circle of the whole world. 

These words of Paul's are mighty thunders and 
penetrating lightnings, and are truly that u ham- 
mer which breaketh the rock in pieces," as Jere- 
miah says : u They are all gone out of the way/ 1 
" The whole world is guilty," " There is none 
righteous." By these words all that is, not only in 
any one man, or in some men, or in some part of 
them, but all that is in the whole world, in all men, 
without the exception of a single individual ab- 
solutely, is broken in pieces ; so that the whole 
world ought to tremble, to fear, and to flee at 
them. What bigger words, what mightier words, 
could be uttered than these ; the whole world is 
guilty, all the sons of men are turned aside and 
unprofitable, none feareth God, none is righteous, 
none under standeth, none seeketh after God ? 
Yet such hath been, and still is, the hardness 
and insensible obstinacy of the human heart, that 
we neither hear nor perceive these thunders and 
lightnings, but join in extolling and asserting 
Freewill and its powers against all these, so as 
truly to fulfil that saying of Malachi i. u They 
build, I will throw down?" v 

u Qua interp. reata obstfictus.'] Interp. See above, Part iv. 
Sect, xxxiv. note e . Re. e the state of the ' reus' or accused : 
obst. one tied and bound with the chain of crime solemnly 
charged, or imputed.' 

v Luther should not say f fulfil;' it is a mere accommo- 
dation of Malachi's words, which have no reference to this 
subject. — Luther refines here too much ; and is again guilty 
of arguing per sequelam. ' The whole world is guilty. Why 
then, if there be any good thing in them ; any good part in 
their substance, or any good affection of their substance, it 
ought to be excepted : else this part, &c. has an answer for 
God.' — But why may they not have abused this good part ? 
the testimony is against their spirit and conduct. By infer- 
ence, their whole substance and all its affections must be 
bad ; but this is not asserted. Just so, in the last section ; 
1 Man seeketh not after God' is the same as saying c Man 
cannot seek after God 3' which he proves by argument and 
inference. 



400 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

partv. There is the same bigness of speech in that 

saying also; " By the deeds of the law no flesh 

is justified before him." It is a big saying, " By 
the deeds of the law;" just as is that also, ( The 
whole world / or that e All the sons of men/ — 
It is observable, that Paul abstains from speaking 
of persons, and mentions the things they are 
seeking after; meaning, forsooth, to involve all 
persons, and whatsoever is most excellent in 
them. For had he said, c the common people 
amongst the Jews/ or ' the Pharisees/ or ' some 
of the wicked/ are not justified; he might seem 
to have left some out, as not altogether unpro- 
fitable, through the power of Freewill and the 
propping-up of the law. But when he condemns 
the very deeds of the law, and makes them 
wicked before God, it becomes manifest that he 
condemns all who excelled in zeal for the law 
and its deeds : and yet those only who were the 
best and most excellent had a zeal for the law and 
its deeds ; and that only in the best and most 
excellent parts of their frames, even their under- 
standing and their will. 

If then, those who exercised themselves in the 
law and its deeds with the greatest zeal and 
endeavour of the understanding and of the will — 
that is,with the whole power of Freewill — and were 
even assisted by the law T itself, as a sort of divine 
helper, which instructed and encouraged them ; if 
these persons, I say, be charged with ungodli- 
ness, in that they are said not to be justified, but 
are declared to be flesh in the sight of God — 
what remains, pray, in the whole human race, 
which is not flesh and ungodliness ? We see all 
alike condemned, who are of the deeds of the law. 
Whether they exercise themselves with the great- 
est zeal, or with moderate zeal, or with no zeal at 
all, it matters not : all could yield but a perform- 
ance of the deeds of the law; and the deeds of 
the law do not justify. If they do not justify, 



which Paul 
speaks. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 401 

they prove their fulfillers to be ungodly, and sect. x. 
leave them so. But the ungodly are guilty per- 
sons, and deserving of God's wrath. — -These 
things are so plain, that no one can even mutter 
ought againt them. x 

But it is common to elude Paul here, and to Evasion, 
get out-fey saying, that by the deeds of the law Gonial 
he means the ceremonial ordinances, which have law of 
become deadly since the death of Christ. 

I reply ; this is that ignorant mistake of Je- 
rome's, which, in spite of Augustine's bold resist- 
ance, hath, through God's departure and Satan's 
ascendency, flowed abroad into the world, and 
continued to this day : by which it hath also been 
brought to pass, that Paul could not possibly be 
understood, and that the knowledge of Christ has 
necessarily been obscured. Nay, had there been 
no error besides in the church, this one was suf- 
ficiently pestilent and powerful to make havoc of 
the Gospel ; by which, except a special grace 
hath interposed, Jerome has earned hell rather 
than heaven — so far am I from venturing to 
canonize him, or to call him a saint. It is not true 
then, that Paul speaks only of ceremonial works ; 
else how wdll his argument stand, by which he 
comes to the conclusion, that all are unrighteous, 



x Luther misapprehends the condemnation here pronounced 
by the Apostle. It is not that the works of the law are evil • 
or that the works of men, so far as they be a fulfilment of it, 
are evil ; but that they do not really perform these works. If 
they really performed these works, such testimonies as those 
above would not have been borne against them. The fact that 
such testimonies have been borne (which he has shewn to be 
designed especially for them) proves that they are not keepers 
of the law but breakers of it ; and as breakers, not as keepers, 
are condemned by it. — Luther is again in error about the word. 
• flesh ;' it is not sinful affection here, any more than in 
the former instances : it is a name for the human species ; 
" no flesh" is l no human being.' The argument however is 
not shaken. If the deeds of the law be never so good, but man 
and Freewill instead of attaining to them are condemned by 
them ; what is man, and what is Freewill ? 

2 D 



402 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part v. and have need of grace ? A man might say, I 

grant we are not justified by ceremonial deeds; 

still a man might be justified by the moral 
deeds of the decalogue. So that you have not 
proved grace necessary to us by your reasoning. 
Besides, what would be the use of that grace, 
which has only freed us from the ceremonial ordi- 
nances ? Those are the easiest of all, and may at 
least be extorted from us by fear or self-love. 

Again, it is a mistake to say that the cere- 
monial ordinances have become deadly and un- 
lawful since the death of Christ. Paul has never 
said this. He says, that they do not justify ; and 
that they do not profit a man before God, so as 
to free him from the charge of ungodliness. It 
is perfectly consistent with this, that a man may 
do them, and do nothing unlawful in doing so. 
Just as eating and drinking are works which do 
not justify, and do not commend us to God; but 
a man does not therefore commit an unlawful act 
in eating and drinking. 

They err also, inasmuch as the ceremonial 
works were enjoined and exacted by the old law 
equally with the decalogue; so that the latter 
had neither less nor more authority than the 
former: and Paul speaks first to the Jews; as 
he says in Romans i. y — Let no one doubt therefore, 
that Ci by the deeds of the law" is meant c all 
the works of the whole law:' for they must not 
be even called works of the law, if the law hath 
been abolished, and is deadly : an abrogated law 
is now no longer a law, as Paul knew very well ; 
and therefore he does not speak of an abrogated 

y I say, 'to the Jews only;* (see above, Sect- ii. note c , 
and Sect. vii. note P) though Luther will have it, to both : 
clearly, however, both had it not in the same form; and the Jew 
had the ceremonial, which the Gentile confessedly had not. 
It was necessary to Luther's argument therefore, that he should 
mark the distinction. — He goes on, ( Nor had this been abro- 
gated.' 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 403 

law, when he makes mention of the deeds of the sect. x. 

law, but of a law which is still in force, and 

regnant. Else, how easy would it have been for 

him to say, ' The law itself is now abrogated!" 

which would have been plain and clear. — But let 

us adduce Paul himself, his own best interpreter, 

who says in Galatians iii. " As many as are of 

the works of the law are under the curse : for it 

is written, Cursed is every one who shall not have 

continued in all things which are written in the 

book of the law, to do them." You observe that 

Paul here, where he is pleading just the same cause 

as to the Romans, and in the same words, speaks 

of all the laws which are written in the book of the 

law, as often as he mentions the works of the law. 

What is still more wonderful, he absolutely 
cites Moses when pronouncing a curse upon those 
who continue ?iot in the law, whereas he himself 
pronounces those cursed who are of the deeds of 
the law, adducing an opposite passage to confirm 
his opposing sentiment; inasmuch as the former 
(Moses) is negative, the latter (Paul) is affirma- 
tive. — But he does so, because the matter stands 
thus before God : those who are most zealous of 
the deeds of the law do least of all fulfil the 
law ; for that they lack the Spirit, who is the ful- 
filler of the law : which they may attempt, it is 
true, to fulfil through their own powers, but can 
effect nothing. Thus each saying is true : accord- 
ing to Moses they be accursed who do not con- 
tinue ; according to Paul they be accursed who 
are of the deeds of the law : for each of these 
writers requires the Spirit in his performer. 
Without this Spirit, the deeds of the law, how 
much soever be done, do not justify, as Paul 
says : and for the same reason, they do not con- 
tinue in all the things which are written, as Moses 
says.* 

z The cavil is, Paul speaks of ceremonial works exclusively ; 
Luther's answer is, 1. Paul's argument would be defective. 

2 d 2 



404 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

partv. In fine, Paul abundantly confirms what I am 

here advancing, by his own division of persons. 

SECT. XL ° J r 

2. Grace would be a mere trifle. 3. These works have not 

Paul's become deathly. 4. They were a part of the law requirements 

meaning a s much as the decalogue, and have never been abrogated. 

ls > ' w ° 1- ks 5 # When treating the same subject in Galatians iii. he ex- 

o t le law, p ress ]y says, ' All things which are written in the book of the 

done in f , J r ' ° 

the flesh, law ^' , , , 

condemn.' ^ ne true anc * snort answer to this cavil is, the whole law 
ceremonial and moral is one institution, and Paul makes no 
exceptions or distinctions. Luther goes wide, and says many 
exceptionable things. What he says about f not abrogated,' 
is ambiguous, inconclusive, and unnecessary. Does he mean that 
the law in both its parts is still standing, just as it was ? Was 
it the Apostle's place here to say ' not abrogated,' if he con- 
sidered it so ? as he does explicitly in Romans vi. vii. 2 Cor. iii. 
Ephes. ii. Colos. ii. Galat. iv. 1 Tim. i. Is it true, that what 
has been the law shall not be spoken of under the name of the 
law, except it be still in force and reigning ? Did the Jews, to 
whom I say only, he says firstly (see last note), this argument 
is addressed, require any assertion of its authority ? — What he 
says to reconcile the apparent discrepancy between Paul and 
Moses, which forms the basis of his interpretation and position 
here, he says under a misapprehension of both Paul's and 
Moses's meaning, and says unwisely and untruly. (Compare 
Deut xxvii. 1 — 26, with Galat. iii. 10.) Paul has it not for his 
object to condemn as many as are doers of the law, but " as many 
as are of the works of the law;" that is, ' all those who are 
looking for justification, in whole or in part, from their obedi- 
ence to the law.' What inconsistency is there between this 
interdict of Paul's, and Moses's curse, denounced upon every 
one that continueth not in all things, &c. ? — Paul neither takes 
away this curse, nor condemns the fulfiller : he condemns the 
attempt to fulfil, not because it succeeds, but because it fails, 
and must ever fail. — ' They both require the Spirit in their 
performer : Moses's cursed continues not, because he has 
not the Spirit ; Paul's cursed is not justified, because he does 
the works without the Spirit.' Now there is no consideration 
about either -power or motive, in either. Moses in effect says, 
* fulfil j' without inquiring or teaching how: and Paul says, 
' aiming to be justified by the law curses, because man cannot 
fulfil it, and there is a curse upon him who doth not.' But 
so far is the Spirit from being the law fulfiller (legis consum- 
mator), as Luther entitles him; that he who hath the Spirit, 
after justification, does not " continue in all things," and would 
be condemned still, if that were required of him ; nor is it in 
any wise his aim to do so. His aim is to do the whole will of 
God, in that relation into which he has now manifestly and con- 
sciously been brought by Him in Christ, as God shall be pleased 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 405 

He divides men who are the doers of the law into SECT.xr. 
tw r o parties : the one he makes spiritual doers, 
the other carnal doers ; leaving none between the 
two. For thus he speaks, " By the deeds of 
the law shall no flesh be justified." What 
does this mean, but that they work at the law 
without the Spirit, seeing they are flesh; that is, 
ungodly and ignorant of God : whom those works 
profit nothing? Thus, in Gal. iii. using the same 
division, he says, u Received ye the Spirit from 
the deeds of the law, or from the hearing of faith ?" 
And again, Rom. iii. u Now the righteousness of 
God without the law is manifested." And again, 
" We judge that a man is justified by faith with- 
out the deeds of the law." From all which, as put 
together, it becomes plain and clear, that the 
Spirit is opposed by Paul to the works of the 
law — just as it is to all other things which are not 
spiritual, and to all the powers and pretences of 
the flesh — so as to make it certain, that this is 
the sentiment of Paul, agreeing with Christ in 
John iii. that all which is not of the Spirit (be it 
never so specious, so holy and so excellent) is 
flesh ; and therefore, that even the most beautiful 

to make known that will to him, and to enable him, by his 
Spirit which dwelleth and walketh in him : a rule, if rule it 
can be called, far more extensive and copious than the law, and 
of a totally different character ; the law of an eternally saved 
and glorified sinner, walking in Christ with God — his Father, 
his Friend, his Portion, his exceeding Joy. — What he says 
here, and in other places, about the justification of the Spirit, is 
fallacious. His language implies that, if the obedience of those 
who are " of the works of the law " were yielded in the Spirit, 
it would justify ; and that it was for lack of this gift, that 
Moses's worshippers did not escape their curse, by "continuing 
in all things." Now, though it be true that the Spirit justifies 
the Lord's called people (1 Cor. vi. 11.), as it did " God mani- 
fest in the flesh" (1 Tim. iii. 16.), by proving whose, and who, 
and what they are ; this is perfectly distinct from any act of 
obedience which removes curse, or earns acceptance. — All 
he wants from ; Galatians, however, he has : f Paul, treating 
the same subject there, expressly comprehends the whole 
law.' 



406 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part v. works of the divine law are of this character, by 

whatsoever powers they may happen to have been 

wrung out. For the Spirit of Christ is necessary ; 
without which they are all deserving only of 
damnation. Let it be a settled point then, that 
Paul means by the deeds of the law not those 
which are ceremonial only, but all the works of 
the whole law. It will at the same time be settled, 
that whatsoever be done without the Spirit, in 
doing the deeds of the law, is condemned. But 
this power of Freewill — the most excellent thing 
forsooth in man — seeing it is of Freewill properly 
so called that we are now treating, is without the 
Spirit. Whereas, to be of the works of the law 
is such a thing, that nothing better can be said of 
a man. He does not say, you observe, 'as many 
as are of sins and of transgression against the 
law;' but " as many as are of the deeds of the law;" 
that is, the best of men — men zealous for the law — 
who, besides the power of Freewill, have even 
been assisted by the law ; that is, instructed and 
exercised therein.* 

a I object to Luther's interpretations and conclusions in this 
section. He infers a division of law workers from the words no 
jlesh; by which Paul expresses not division, but universality. No 
flesh (see above, Part iv. Sect, xxxvii. note k ) is no human being. 
The argument drawn from this supposed division therefore — 
that it is the deeds of the law done without the Spirit, which 
fail to justify, and do absolutely condemn — falls to the ground. 
In the several passages which he quotes, the opposition is 
not between the Spirit and the deeds of the law, but between 
the Law and the Gospel. (Gal. iii. Rom. iii.) Nor do I allow 
the parallel between this text and John iii. 6. any further than 
that the word ' flesh ' is used in the same sense in both ; but 
that, not Luther's sense. I must object to the assertion, that 
it is the absence of the Spirit which makes the deeds of the 
law damnable ; which would not be damnable, if He were pre- 
sent in them : as if any works of man in the flesh, performed 
with or without the Spirit, ' could endure the severity of God's 
judgment !' — All I can allow to Luther, therefore, in this sec- 
tion is, c By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified 
in his sight;' therefore Freewill, even with the help of 
the law, is still condemned ; for with that help she cannot 
justify. Then what is she without it ? — And is not this enough ? 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 407 

If then Freewill assisted by the law, and occu- sect. 
pied in the law with all its might, profits nothing, XIL 
and does not justify, bat is left in ungodliness and 
flesh; what are we to think that it can do alone, does is to 
and without the law? shew sin. 

" By the law, says he, is the knowledge of 
sin/' He shews here, how much, and how far, the 
law profits a man ; in other words, that Freewill 
is so blind, when left to herself, as not even to 
know sin, but to stand in need of the law for a 
teacher. Now what can he endeavour towards 
the taking away of sin, who does not know what 
sin is ? This is what he can do ; he can take sin 
for no sin, and what is not sin for sin ; as expe- 
rience abundantly shews. How does the world 
persecute the righteousness of God which is 
preached in the Gospel, vilifying it as heresy, 
error, and all other the worst possible names, by 
the instrumentality of those very persons, whom 
she accounts the best of men, and the most zealous 
for righteousness and godliness. Meanwhile, 
she makes a boast and brag of her own works and 
actions, which are in reality sin and error, as 
though they were righteousness and wisdom. 
Paul cloth therefore stop the mouth of Freewill 
with this word of his, by teaching that sin is 
shewn her by the law; she being herself one who 
does not know what is sin : so far is he from 

Luther misapprehends the scope of the Apostle's argument. 
He is not reasoning and declaring about man as with,, and as 
without, the Spirit : but having shewn what man is, both Jew 
and Gentile, from Scripture ; he is arguing, how impossible 
it is that he should be justified by the law. The argument is 
against justification by the law, as preparatory to his opening of 
justification by the Gospel ; not against man's natural impo- 
tency and imbecility, whilst without the Spirit. — Luther makes 
' not justified' to mean the same as ' damned.' It implies damn- 
ation, certainly- but Luther's expressions and argument inti- 
mate, that damnation is brought and incurred by doing these 
deeds without the Spirit ; whereas, in fact, that damnation had 
already been incurred, before the law came ; and was only con- 
tinued and manifested thereby, instead of being removed. 



408 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part v. granting to her any power of striving after 
good. 

And here that question of Diatribe's, so often 
repeated throughout her whole treatise, ' Tf we 
can do nothing, what is the use of so many laws, 
so many precepts, so many threatenings, so many 
promises/ is answered. Paul here replies, " By 
the law is the knowledge of sin." He gives a far 
different answer to this question, from what man, 
or Freewill, thinks for. Freewill is not proved, 
says he, by the law; she does not work together 
with it unto righteousness: for righteousness is 
not by the law, but the knowlege of sin. This is 
the benefit, this the effect, this the office of the 
law, to be a light to the ignorant and blind : and 
such a light, as shews disease, sin, wickedness, 
death, hell, the wrath of God, to be ours; but 
does not help, or release us from them. She is 
contented with having shewn us what our state is. 
Upon this, the man knowing his disease of sin, is 
sad, is afflicted, yea despairs. The law does not 
help him ) much less can he help himself. Another 
light is necessary to shew him his remedy. This 
is the word of the Gospel, displaying Christ as the 
deliverer from all these. It is not Reason or Free- 
will which makes Him known: nay, how should 
she make him known, when she herself is very 
darkness, needing the light of the law to shew her 
that self-disease, which she sees not by her own 
light, but imagines to be soundness. 15 

b How clearly do these latter words of Paul confirm the view 
given in the former note as to his meaning and design ! ' The 
law cannot justify, for it exposes this state of man which I have 
been charging upon him ; it just manifests what he is.' He 
does not say makes sin, or makes him a sinner; but is, or leads 
to, knowledge and acknowledgment of sin. What connection 
Would this clause have with the preceding sentence, if the 
o'biect were to shew, that man's law deeds done without the 
Spirit do not justify, implying that with the Spirit they do ? — 
But how strong is the argument, when correctly opened, 
against Freewill ! She does not even know, what is sinful and 
what is not j nor how vile she is, through her propensity to it. — 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 409 

In Galatians too, he treats the same question sect. 
in just the same way, when he says, what then is 



the law ? and answers this question, not as Dia- Con fi rme( i 
tribe would, by saying that it proves there is such by Gal. m. 
a thing as Freewill, but by saying, " It was * 9, and o 
ordained for the sake of transgressions, until the 
seed should come, to which he had made the pro- 
mise." For the sake of transgressions, he says : 
not to restrain them, as Jerome dreams (since 
Paul maintains, that it was promised to the Seed 
which should come, that He should take away and 
should restrain sin, by the free gift of righteous- 
ness) ; but to increase transgressions, as he writes 
in Rom. v. " The law stole in, that sin might 
abound." Not that there were no sins, or that 

Luther reads the word " justified" in the present tense, for which 
I do not find any authority : the future defines the sense both of 
Sion and of €7ri^vivais ; that it is therefore, not because, and 
* increased or perfected knowledge,' not e acknowledgment.' 
The law not only shews what is sin to a greater extent, but 
also its power over us, and its malignity, or " exceeding sinful- 
ness :" it exacerbates and excites by forbidding and requiring 
(see Rom. vii. 7 — 12.) ; and what must that soul, or Freewill 
be, which is provoked to evil by such a cause ? 

c Luther does not see quite the whole of this great text, 
though he sees much of it. To understand it, we must connect 
what has gone before with it ; beginning with verse 12. 
" Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and 
death by sin : even so death passed upon all men through him 
in whom all sinned. For until the law sin was in the world ; 
but sin is not imputed when there is no- law." — Man — the 
whole race — sinned in and with the first man ; each indivi- 
dual, distinctly and personally, having been created with, 
and being inseparable from him, when he personally com- 
mitted the one transgression. — Though sins were committed 
afterwards by the several individuals of the race, as brought 
out, one after another, into manifest existence ; these were 
not imputed, but they were dealt with on the ground of the 
first transgression, in which they were distinctly, individually 
and personally, parties 3 by means of their union and unity 
with Adam. — The law afterwards '«' stole in," that the offence 
might be multiplied; or, as in Galatians, because of offences ;* that 

*Witli whatever little variety this test maybe read and understood — whe- 
ther added because of, or put into the hand of a Mediator because of — it must 
imply, if it do not express, the same broad truth, that the law had no other 
effect and design than to multiply transgressions. — Ag a in, the application of 



410 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

PART V. sins did not abound, without the law, but inas- 

much as transgressions were not known to be 

transgressions, or such great offences, but the 
greater part, and the greatest of them, were 
accounted righteousnesses. Now if sin be not 
known, there is no room for remedy, and no hope, 
because they would not bear the hand of the 
physician; as being whole in their own eyes, and 
having no need of a physician. The law there- 
fore is necessary in order to make sin known ; 
that, by knowing the baseness and vastness of his 
sin, the proud man, who seemeth whole in his own 
eyes, may be humbled, and may sigh and pant 
after the grace which is set before him in Christ. 
See what a simple sentence is here ! " By the 
law is the knowledge of sin/' Yet this sentence 
of itself is quite powerful enough to confound and 
overturn Freewill. For if it be true, that she 
knows not of herself what sin and wickedness is, 
as Paul says both here, and in Rom. vii. ("I had 
not known lust to be sin, except the law had said, 
Thou shalt not covet") how shall she ever know 

is, that there might be more than one offence ; that many offences 
might be added to the first. It is not, therefore, merely the 
communication of the knowledge of sin, that was sought and 
conveyed by that institution, but multiplication of transgres- 
sion ; that, with regard to the Lord's people, who are the 
displayers of God, specially as that God which is love — love to 
the uttermost — love in the way of grace and mercy — the God 
of all grace might be shewn as what He is, in the much more 
abounding of grace, where sin hath abounded. — Sin has never 
been imputed by God to man, any more than by man to himself, 
without express and absolute enactment. The command, or 
prohibition, in the garden was of this sort ; and there hath been 
none given since, save the law — which was confined to one 
family, the seed of Abraham, for a while the visible church — 
and a second, declaredly an universal one, " Repent ye and 
believe the Gospel." On the former of these universal com- 
mands 1 death was suspended ; on the latter, life. He that 
believeth — which implies repentance — shall be saved ; he that 
believeth not — which implies impenitence — shall perish. 

Rom. vii. 7. is equally just when that text is understood in its fulness — the 
provocation which the law gives to sin— as in its inferior and more common 
interpretation, of mere teaching. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 411 

what is righteousness and goodness ? If she does sect. 
not know what righteouness is, how shall she ever 
strive after it ? We know not sin — in which we 
have been born, in which we live and move and 
have our being ; say rather, which lives and 
moves and reigns in us — how then should we 
know righteousness which reigns without us, in 
the heavens ! What a mere nothing, and less than 
nothing, do these words make of that wretched 
thing called Freewill ! d 

These things being so, Paul makes proclama- Rom. Hi. 
tion with full confidence and authority, saying, 2, ~~ ? 5 - 
" But now the righteousness of God without the manythun- 
law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and derboits 
the Prophets ; the righteousness of God, I say, Freewill, 
by faith in Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all 
them that believe in him. For there is no dis- 
tinction : for all have sinned and come short of 
the glory of God; being justified freely by his 
grace, through the redemption which is in Christ 
Jesus; whom God hath set forth as a propitiation 
by faith in his blood, &c." 

Here Paul utters nothing but thunderbolts First ihun- 
against Freewill. First, the righteousness of God derbolt - 
without the law, says he, is manifested : he sepa- 
rates the righteousness of God from the righteous- 
ness of the law; because the righteousness of faith 
comes by grace, without the law. What he says, 
" without the law," can mean nothing else, than 
that Christian righteousness is perfectly inde- 
pendent of the works of the law ; so as that the 

d The wliole force of the argument from this clause, ff By the 
law, &c." is, ' if the law, which does so little, be necessary, 
what is Freewill by itself?' Luther, however, did not thoroughly 
apprehend the nature and design of that interposed covenant 
and dispensation ; its twofold relation to Israel, as the elect 
nation, and as the visible church — its universal typicality — its 
strict temporariness — and its precise adaptedness to teach sin ; 
that is, to teach those who have made themselves sinners 
before they are born into the world, and as such are under 
the wrath of God, how just that wrath is. 



412 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part v. works of the law are of no worth or power for the 
obtaining of it. As he says soon after, " We 
determine that a man is justified by faith without 
the works of the law:" and as he has said already, 
" By the deeds of the law no flesh is justified 
before him." From all which it is most plain, 
that the endeavour or desire of Freewill is abso- 
lutely nothing: for, if the righteousness of God 
consists without the law and without the works of 
the law, how shall it not much more consist with- 
out Freewill ? Since it is the highest endeavour 
of Freewill to be exercised about amoral righteous- 
ness, or the works of the law ; by which its blind- 
ness and impotency is aided. This word 'without' 
clears away works morally good, clears away 
moral righteousness, clears away preparations for 
grace : in short, invent what you may as a perform- 
ance which Freewill is equal to, Paul will persist 
in saying, ' the righteousness of God has nothing 
to do with this/ 

Now, although I should grant that Freewill 
might by its own endeavour make advances some 
whither ; that is, to good works, or the righteous- 
ness of the civil law or the moral law ; still it 
advances no way at all towards the righteousness 
of God, nor does God account its endeavours 
worthy of any regard towards obtaining his righte- 
ousness, when he says that his righteousness 
availeth without the law. If then Freewill maketh 
no advances towards the righteousness of God, 
what would it be profited by advancing through its 
own performances and endeavours (were this pos- 
sible) even to the holiness of angels? — These 
surely are no obscure or ambiguous words ; here 
is no place left for any tropes. Paul manifestly 
distinguishes two sorts of righteousness; ascrib- 
ing the one to the law, the other to grace: affirm- 
ing, that the latter is freely given without the 
former and its works; but that the former does 
not justify or avail any thing, without the latter. — 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 413 

Let me be made to see then, how Freewill can sect. 
subsist and be defended amidst these objections. 



The second thunderbolt is, that he says the second 
righteousness of God is manifested, and is in thunder- 
force, unto all and upon all who believe in Christ; bolt ' 
and that there is no difference. 

Again he in the clearest terms divides the whole 
human race into two parts, and gives the righte- 
ousness of God to believers, whilst he takes it 
away from unbelievers. Is any one so mad then, 
as to doubt that the power or endeavour of Free- 
will is something different from faith in Christ ? 
Now Paul denies that any thing, which subsists 
without the limits of this faith, is righteous before 
God; and, if not righteous before God, it must be 
sin. For with God there is nothing left in the 
midway between righteousness and sin, as a 
sort of neutral substance, which is neither righte- 
ousness, nor sin. Else, Paul's whole argument 
would fail, which proceeds upon this division of 
things; namely, that whatsoever is done and carried 
on amongst men, is either righteousness or sin : 
righteousness, if it be done in faith ; sin, if done 
without it. With men indeed there are actions, 
it is true, of a middle and neutral character, in 
which they neither owe nor yield any thing to each 
other mutually ; bat the ungodly man sins against 
God, whether he eat or drink, or whatsoever 
he do, because he is perpetually using God's 
creatures wickedly and ungratefully, without 
giving glory to God from his heart at any 
moment. 6 

e The believer alone is righteous before God. It is not pre- 
tended by those, with whom Luther reasons,, that Freewill makes 
any man a believer : it is a power and exercise distinct from, 
and prior to faith. If the faithful man, then, alone is just, what 
is the Freewill man — and of what character is his act r — It is 
scarcely necessary to notice here, that Luther speaks of God's 
manifested righteous ones. Those who have been justified from 
everlasting, in the covenant transactions between the divine 
persons, referred to the Father and to the Lord Jesus Christ 



414 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART V. 

SECT. 
XVI. 

Third 

thunder- 
bolt. 



Fourth 
bolt. 



This also is no light thunderbolt, that he says, 
" All have sinned and are come short of the glory 
of God: neither is there any difference." What 
could be said more clearly, pray ? — I will suppose 
a man to act by his Freewill ; tell me, whether 
this man sins in that self-endeavour of his. If 
he does not sin, why does Paul not except, but 
involve him amongst the rest, without any dis- 
tinction ? Assuredly, he who says all have sinned 
excepts none in any place, at any time, for any 
performance, for any endeavour. If you except a 
man for any endeavour or work, you make Paul a 
liar; because this Freewill worker, or endeavourc-r, 
is also numbered amongst the all, and in the all, and 
Paul ought to have given him reverence, and not 
to have numbered him so freely, and so generally, 
amongst the sinners. 

So again, it is no light thunderbolt, his saying 
that they are devoid of the glory of God.- — The 
glory of God may be understood with a difference 
here, actively and passively. Paul contrives this 
by his use of the Hebrew idioms, in which he is 
frequent. Actively, the glory of God is that with 
which God glories in us ; passively, that with 
which we glory in him. I think it should be 
understood passively here: just as the faith of 
Christ, in Latin, expresses the faith which Christ 
has ; but by the Hebrews the faith of Christ is 
understood to mean the faith which we have 
towards Christ. So the righteousness of God, in 

(theFather's will appointing to receive them as just, through the 
merits of the most precious death and passion of his dear Son) 
are manifested to be such, by the blessed Spirit's acting upon 
and within them in due season, and thereby enabling, yea con- 
straining them to believe. Now therefore they have conformed 
with that edict of God, described above (Sect. xiii. note c ), 
w r hich says, " Repent ye and believe the Gospel :" nor is it 
until this manifestation has thus been made, that any of their 
personal actings become the acts of the righteous ; or can in 
in any sort, consequently, be accounted as righteous acts. The 
acts of Freewill therefore, being performed before the man has 
entered into this state, are acts of sin. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 415 

Latin, means the righteousness which God pos- sect. 
sesses : but by the Hebrews is understood to 
mean the righteousness which we have from God, 
and before God. Thus I understand the glory of 
God, not Latin-wise but Hebrew-wise, as denoting 
the glory which we have iu God, and before God, 
and which may be called glory in God. He, then, 
glories in God, who knows of a surety, that God 
has a favour towards him, and counts him worthy 
of a kind regard, so that what he does is pleasing 
in his sight, or what displeases is freely forgiven 
and borne with. 

If then the endeavours of Freewill be not sin, 
but goodness, in the sight of God, assuredly she 
may boast, and with confidence in that glory may 
say, c this pleases God/ i God looks with an eye 
of favour upon this/ ' God ascribes a worthiness 
to this and accepts it, or at least bears with and 
forgives it/ For this is the sort of glory which 
the faithful have in God ; which they who have 
not, are rather confounded before him. But Paul 
denies this to all men here, affirming that they are 
absolutely devoid of this glory : which experience 
also proves. Ask all the party of Freewill endea- 
vourers without exception, and, if you can shew me 
one, who seriously from his heart can say of any 
one desire and endeavour of his, 'I know this is 
well pleasing to God/ I will acknowledge myself 
conquered, and will yield the palm to you. But I 
know that no such man will be found. Now, if 
this glory be wanting, so that conscience dares not 
certainly to know or to be confident, that this parti- 
cular act is pleasing to God, we may be sure that it 
does not please God. Because, as the man believes, 
so it is with him : for he does not believe that he 
certainly pleases God — which, however, is neces- 
sary; since this is the very crime of unbelief!, to 
doubt of the favour of God : who would have us 
believe with the most assured faith, that he favour- 
eth us. Thus we prove by the very testimony of 
their own conscience, that, since Freewill is desti- 



416 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part v. tute of the glory of God. she is perpetually sub- 

jecting herself to the charge of unbelief, together 

with all her powers, desires and endeavours. 1 
Fifth bolt. But what will the defenders of Freewill say at 
last to that which follows; " being justified freely 
by his grace ?" What is this " freely ?" What 
is this " by his grace ?" How do endeavour and 
merit square with a gratuitous and freely given 
righteousness? Perhaps they will say here, that 
they ascribe the least tiling possible to Freewill ; 
by no means a merit of condignity. But these 
are empty words ; for the very aim of Freewill 
is to make room for merit. This has been Dia- 
tribe's perpetual complaint and expostulation — 
' If there be not freedom in the will, what place 
is there for merit ? If there be not place for merit, 
what place for reward ? To what shall it be im- 
puted, if a man is justified without merit V 

Paul replies here, that there is absolutely no 
such thing as merit, but that all men are justified 
freely, as many as are justified; and that this is not 
imputed to any thing but the grace of God : but 
with the gift of righteousness is bestowed at the 
same time the kingdom, and eternal life. Where 
is now the endeavour, the desire, the pains, and 
the merit of Freewill? What is the use of these 
things? You cannot complain of obscurity and 
ambiguity; the matter and the words are most 
clear and most simple. For what if they do attri- 
bute the least thing possible to Freewill ; still they 
teach us that we can obtain righteousness and 

f It will be seen presently, that I consider Luther wrong in 
the account which he here gives of " the glory of God j but he 
js excessive and erroneous, even upon his own representation of 
his thunderbolt. Freewill, he says, is evil because destitute of 
{ the glory of God 3' by which he understands e assurance that 
we please God.' She is in fact guilty of unbelief, in not having 
it. This is outrageous : because faith is not ' I believe God 
has a favour to me ,' but ' I believe in God :' neither is it true 
that God has a favour to every body. What are Luther's repro- 
bates? Then, if every body is to believe this, many are to 
believe a lie. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 417 

grace by this very little thing. For they do not sec.xvi. 
resolve that question c Why does God justify this 
man and leave the other in his sins/ otherwise 
than by setting up Freewill ; that is to say, that 
the one man has endeavoured, and the other has 
not : and that God respects the one of these cha- 
racters for his endeavour, and despises the other, 
that he may not be unjust, as he would be if he acted 
otherwi se. Yea altho ugh they pretend both in their 
writings and in their speakings, that they do not 
obtain grace by merit of condignity, and do not 
call it merit of condignity, still they mock us with 
a word, and do not less hold fast the thing. For 
what excuse is it, that they do not call it merit of 
condignity, when they still ascribe to it every thing 
which belongs to merit of condignity ? for in- 
stance, that he who endeavours finds favour with 
God ; he who does not endeavour finds none. 
Is not this plainly merit of worth ? Do they not 
make God a respecter of works, of merits, and of 
persons ? For instance ; that the one has himself 
to blame for lacking grace, because he hath not 
endeavoured ; the other, because he hath endea- 
voured, gets grace ; who w T ould not have had it y if 
he had not endeavoured. If this be not merit of 
worth, I should be glad to know what can be 
called merit of worth. You might trifle in this 
manner with all sorts of words, and say, it is not 
indeed really merit of condignity^ but it does 
what merit of condignity usually does. The thorn 
is not a bad tree, it only does what a bad tree 
does. The fig-tree is not a sound tree, but it 
does what a good tree usually does. Diatribe 
forsooth is not an abandoned woman, but only 
says and does what abandoned women are wont 
to*do. g 

£ Luther's bolts are five ; 1. The righteousness of God is 
here declared to he perfectly distinct from the righteousness 
of the law. 1. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. 3. All have 
sinned. 4. All have come short of the glory of God. 5. The 

2e 



418 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part v. These defenders of Freewill have met with the 

■ misfortune described in that old saying. ' He 

sc xvii. J &? 

justified are all justified freely. — I should rather consider this 

Sophists magnificent and comprehensive passage as one vast bolt ; the 

rt, 0I p f han ver y emission of which lays Freewill prostrate, because it 

. e e a " declares what her state was, to give occasion to such emission. 
< - r icins. 

This vast bolt, however, may be considered as expanding itself 

into several smaller bolts, each of which contuses Freewill. — 
Luther breaks the shock of this bolt, in some measure, by not 
exactly discerning the order of the Apostle's argument. He con- 
siders Paul as speaking of the preached Gospel, in its reception 
and effects, from chap. i. 16 ; whereas from i. 18. to iii. 20. he is 
setting out the condemnation of all men, first of the Greek, 
and secondly of the Jew, as without the Gospel : and then, 
having previously shewn that there is nothing but condemna- 
tion without it, both without and with the law, he proceeds to 
open the Gospel as the revelation of the counsel and perform- 
ances of God's free favour, with which Freewill neither has, 
nor can have, any thing to do ; and which her necessities have 
rendered necessary, if every individual of mankind — already 
shewn to be in a damned state — were not to be continued in 
that damned state for ever and ever. — Some of his bolts also 
I consider Luther as interpreting erroneously ; whilst each, 
truly interpreted, is a bolt indeed ! 

" But now the righteousness of God without the law is 
manifested, being witnessed by the law and the Prophets." 
The righteousness of God is that righteousness which God 
freely bestows ; which, on many accounts, might specially be 
called his ; but which is specially so called, in opposition to 
man's own righteousness — a law righteousness — the result of 
a man's own personal obedience. " Not having mine own 
righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through 
the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by 
faith." (Phil. iii. 9.) — Luther speaks much of distinctness and 
opposition, but he did not discern the extent of this ; and was 
for bringing the law in again, after having cast it out. But 
the words x^P 19 v ^ lH banish all connection with the law for 
ever ; just as x^P 19 XP La ~* (Ephes. ii. 12.) and x^P^ ^f 1 * (John 
xv. 5.) declare entire severance from Christ : indeed what is 
severance, except it be perfect ? — " Even the righteousness of 
God, which is b}r faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all 
them that believe." — I say, by the faith of Jesus Christ, mean- 
ing the Gospel, as strictly opposed to the Law, and so pre- 
serving a distinctness from that which follows, " them that 
believe" — the distinguishing character of those to whom the 
Gospel is made the power of God unto salvation : it is unto 
these — preached especially for their benefit — they are as it were 
its point of rest -, and upon these — they are efficaciously, con- 
sciously, and manifestatively invested with it, even as they 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 419 

falls into Scylla by wishing to avoid Charybdis/ SC. xvii. 
Through a desire of dissenting from the Pela- 

have covenantly, secretly, and to the eye of God and his Christ, 
possessed it from all eternity. " Inherit the kingdom prepared 
for you from the foundation of the world ;"' " According to his 
own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before 
the world began/' — (Matt. xxv. 34. 2 Tim. i. 9.) — !C For there 
is no difference : for all have sinned,, and come short of the 
glory of God." The Jew and the Greek are invested with 
this righteousness alike, through the instrumentality of this 
preached Gospel : He is hereby shewn and declared to be the 
God of the Gentile as well as of the Jew, and to be no respecter 
of persons ; even as all — that is, both Jew and Gentile alike — 
hare manifested themselves to be sinners, and nothing but 
sinners (for those who had the law transgressed it, as well as 
those who had it not), so proving that there was no possibility of 
acceptance with God — that is, of being made righteous — in any 
other way. I consider the sin here spoken of to be the sin 
committed by every individual man whilst living and acting 
in this world, which rendered it impossible that he should 
obtain the glory of God en a law ground, even if his original 
sin and guilt were remitted : which it was the special design 
of the law covenant and dispensation to make manifest. The 
word fjuapTov denotes a time prior to this manifestation of 
God's righteousness : it is not are sinning, or have sinned, but 
have in time past been sinning — as the Apostle has shewn dis- 
tinctly of both these parties, which together constitute the 
whole human race — and are now therefore " left behind in the 
race" by the glory of God. This is the proper import of the 
word va-eplv-at : which applies specially to the Jews who had 
the covenant of eternal life — that is, i: of the glory of God" — 
proposed to them, on the ground of their own personal obe- 
dience ■ which could not be so properly said of the Gentiles, 
whilst their conduct had been such as to make it manifest that 
they could have no claim under such a covenant if they had 
been allowed to be candidates and competitors for its prize. — 
I do not accord with Luther in his idea of this glory : it is the 
same thing which is spoken of, Horn. v. 2. (" rejoice in hope 
of the glory of God"), and in 1 Peter v. 1. (" a partaker of 
the glory which shall be revealed.") It is that manifested 
excellency which God has provided for his people : and which 
is with the greatest fitness called His glory — the glory of 
God — because the state into which He will in due time intro- 
duce his human people will be one of His most glorious mam- 
festers : they will in their measure, both individually and col- 
lectively, when thus brought into, and displayed in, the com- 
pleteness of their union with the Image of the Invisible One, 
shew Him forth as He is. By this glory — which, if it be to 
be received upon a law ground, requires spotless perfection 

~2e2 



420 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

partv. gians, they began with denying merit of condig- 
nity, and, by the very ground on" which they deny, 

in him who wins it — they had all been outstripped and over- 
come, so as to have no part in it. — " Being justified freely by 
his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus." 
These words open the nature of God's righteousness, as well as 
the origin and ground of its bestowal. Justified is from the same 
root with righteousness, and expresses properly ' making the 
unjust just :' it is God's method of absolving a sinner from his 
offences by taking them clean away ; the origin of this removal 
is free favour, and the way of it is Christ's blood-shedding. It is 
a cleansing which we receive without money and without 
price, from, and unto the display of, that portion of God 
which we distinguish by the name of grace ; but it is a cleans- 
ing which he has rendered himself just in freely bestowing — 
that is, which he freely bestows in perfect consistency with 
his justice — through the price which Christ paid, by joining 
himself to them in their damned state, living with them as 
The Righteous One in and under their curse, and at length 
dying with them, and for them, a death of shame, agony, and 
complicated torments. The expression is peculiar, " The 
redemption which is in Christ Jesus ;" marking the peculiar 
and elect objects of this redemption : it is a deliverance, 
through payment of a valuable consideration, had and received 
by means of union with Christ Jesus — sought and obtained, 
therefore, for those only, to whom the Father (as both Covenant 
and Scripture speak) hath vouchsafed this most precious of all 
gifts, which implies and conveys all the rest — union with, being 
in, Christ. <( According as he hath chosen us in Him' — that is, to 
be in Him; that we should be in Him — "before the foundation 
of the world." — Hereby, as it is afterwards declared, God is 
shewn to be righteous, though the justifier of sinners ; who 
are manifested to have had this covenant union, of His free 
gift, from everlasting, and therefore to have been of the num- 
ber of those, for the sake of whom He did so come, live, and 
die — by having faith given to them in clue season, through the 
regeneration and within agency of the Holy Ghost, and so 
differencing themselves from others, to whom, according to 
the will of God, the free grace proclamation is made, and the 
second universal commandment (which the more private and 
peculiar one of the law had established to be the only prac- 
ticable method of salvation and glory) — Repent ye and believe 
the Gospel — hath been in common with them delivered, whilst 
it is by them exclusively obeyed. 

Thus doth this ordnance text of Luther's fire a sort of volley 
against Freewill, of which every shot is death. e Righteous- 
ness of God' — c without the law ' — e the faith of Jesus Christ' — • 
all them that believe ' — ' no difference ' — ' all have sinned ' — ' all 
come short of glory' — ( justified freely'— ' by His grace' — 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 421 

do more strongly affirm it; denying with word SC. xvn. 
and pen what in reality and in heart they affirm, 
and making themselves twofold worse than the 
Pelagians. First, inasmuch as the Pelagians sim- 
ply, candidly, and ingenuously confess and assert 
merit of condignity, calling a boat a boat, a fig- 
tree a fig-tree; and teaching what they think. But 
our friends, 11 though they think and teach the same 
thing as these, beguile us meanwhile with lying 
words, and with a false shew of dissenting from the 
Pelagians, when in reality they do nothing less than 
this ; so that, if you look at the character we per- 
sonate, you see in us the most determined ene- 
mies of the Pelagians ; if you look at our real 
mind, we are double Pelagians. Secondly, inas- 
much as, by this assumption, we estimate and 
purchase the grace of God at a far lower rate 
than the Pelagians. They assert, that it is not 
some small thing which is in us, whereby we ob- 
tain grace, but many great, whole, full, and per- 
fect endeavours and performances. Our friends, 
on the contrary, account it to be a very small 
thing, and next to nothing, by which we earn 
grace. 

If we must be in error therefore, those persons 
err more honestly and with less pride, who affirm 
that the grace of God is purchased at a great 
price, reckoning it to be dear and precious ; than 
those who teach that it is bought for a little, and 
for a very little, accounting it mean and con- 
temptible. But Paul beats them both together 

*■ through the redemption' — ' a propitiation by blood' — e that 
he might be just' — ' the justifier of him that believeth: ' here 
are no less than thirteen bolts, thirteen death-blows for Free- 
will, whilst the very existence of the Gospel declares the Free- 
will state of those to whom it is sent. 

h Nostri verb.'] Friends, inasmuch as they profess to be anta- 
gonists of the Pelagians together with us. — What follows — ' si 
hypocrisin spectes' — c hac hypocrisi' — is by a figure taken 
from the histrionic art j that peculiar species of simulation, of 
which the stage-player is guilty, when he puts on his mask, 
and personates a character in the drama. 



422 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part v. into one mass by a single word, when he says 

' that " all are justified freely ;" and again, " that 

they are justified without the law ;" " without the 
deeds of the law." In asserting a free justifica- 
tion as the justifier of all men, he leaves none to 
work, or merit, or prepare themselves, and leaves 
no work that can be called congruous or de- 
serving, but breaks in pieces, by one stroke of 
this thunderbolt, both the Pelagians with their 
entire merit, and the Sophists with their little modi- 
cum of merit. Free justification does not allow 
you to set up workers of any sort ; inasmuch as 
i free gift/ and f prepare yourself by some work/ 
are manifest opposites. Again; justification by 
grace allows not of any personal worthiness : as 
he says afterwards also, in chap. xi. u If by grace, 
then is it no more of works ; otherwise grace is 
no more grace ;" just as also in chap. iv. he 
says, " Now to him that worketh is the reward 
reckoned, not of grace, but of debt." So that 
my friend Paul stands up as the invincible de- 
stroyer of Freewill, laying two whole armies flat 
on their faces, with a single word. For if we be 
justified without works, all works are condemned, 
both small and great; he excepts none, but ful- 
minates equally against all. 
sc.xviii. See here, also, how drowsy all our friends have 

been ; and of what profit it is to a man, if he have 

Overlooked l eanec l upon the authority of the old Fathers, 
Paul. approved as those have been, through 6 such a 
series of ages/ Have not they also been all 
equally blind; rather, have not they also over- 
looked Paul's most clear and most express words? 
Is it possible, that any thing could be said 
clearly and expressly for grace, in opposition to 
Freewill, pray, if PauPs discourse be not clear 
and express ? He pursues his argument in a way 
of comparison, 1 making his boast of grace in 

1 Per contentionem.~\ Referring to Paul's continual and re- 
peated opposition of grace to works, in this and the following 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 423 

opposition to works; and then, in the clearest sect. 
and plainest terms, declares, c that we are justi- 
fied freely ; and that grace is not grace, if it be 
procured by our works — most explicitly excluding 
all works in the matter of justification, that he 
may establish only grace, and gratuitous justifi- 
cation : k and do we still look for darkness in the 
midst of this light ; and, when w T e cannot ascribe 
great things and every thing to ourselves, do we 
endeavour to ascribe very small and inconsiderable 
things to ourselves, just to carry the point that 
justification is not free, and without works, by the 
grace of God? As if, forsooth, the man who denies 
that we are supplied with the greater things, and 
the all things which are necessary to justifica- 
tion, doth not much more deny, that we are supplied 
with the little things and the few — when he is 
maintaining all the while, that we are justified 
only by his grace, without works of any kind, 
and even without the law itself; in which all 
works, both great and small, both works of con- 
gruity, and works of condignity, are compre- 
hended? — Go now and boast of the authority of 
the ancients, and trust to their sayings; all of 
whom to a man, as you perceive, have overlooked 
Paul, that most clear and explicit doctor ! Nay, 
they have, as it were, designedly got out of the 
way of this day-star, or rather of this sun ; 
being engrossed, forsooth, with the carnal imagin- 
ation, that it seemed absurd there should be no 
place left for merits. 

Let me adduce the example of Abraham, which Paul's rita- 
Paul subsequently adduces. u If Abraham, says example of 

chapter, as also in chapters x. xi. Contention, or comparison, 
is a figure which Paul abounds in ; letter and spirit ; law and 
faith ; God's righteousness and their own righteousness ; life 
and death ; flesh and Spirit, &c. &c. are set out by him in the 
most forcible manner, through this sort of competition. 

k Solam gratiam. graiuitam justificationem ."] Sol. gr. as op- 
posed to grace mixed with works : gr. just, justification with- 
out any personal worth. 



424 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

partv. he, was justified by works, he hath glory ; but 
not before God. For what saith the Scripture ? 

Marched 1 Abraham believed God, and it was counted to 

and ap- him for righteousness." 

phed. Here again, observe Paul's division; he dis- 

tinctly mentions two righteousnesses of Abraham : 
one of works, which is moral and civil, but by 
which he denies that he was justified before God, 
though just before men by it. Moreover, he has 
glory with men, although even this man also 
comes short of the glory of God, by this righte- 
ousness. Nor can any one say, that the works 1 
of the ceremonial law are here condemned ; since 
Abraham lived so many years before the law. 
Paul speaks simply of the works of Abraham; 
and those, none other than his best. It would be 
ridiculous to reason whether a man be justified by 
bad works. If then Abraham be not just by any 
works of his, but, except he be clothed with 
another righteousness, that of pure faith, be left, 
both as to his person and as to all his works, 
under the charge of ungodliness ; it is plain, that 
no man makes any advances towards righteous- 
ness, by his own works: and further, that no 
works, no desires, no endeavours of Freewill are 
of any avail before Gocl; but are all accounted 
ungodly, unjust and wicked. If the man be not 
just, his works and desires are not just; if not 
just, they are damnable, and worthy of wrath. 
The other righteousness is that of faith, which doth 
not stand in any works, but in God's favour and 
manner of accounting of us, through grace. And 
see how Paul dwells upon that word e accounting 

1 Gloriam apud homines. Facat gloria Dei.~] Here again, Lu- 
ther has the mistake already noticed (see notes § h ), respecting 
the glory of God. It is quite in another sense that all are said 
to come short, and Abraham not to boast. He had no cause 
of boasting before God, because he was not justified to God by 
his works ; else he would have had : as he might boast him- 
self before men, because he was shewing himself to be one 
justified to God, by his works done after justification. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 425 

of us ';* how lie urges, repeats, and beats it into sect. 
us. XIX - 

" To him who worketh, says he, is the reward " 
reckoned not of grace but of debt. But to him that 
worketh not, but believeth on him who justifieth 
the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteous- 
ness ; according to the purpose of the grace of 
God." Then he adduces David speaking in like 
manner of the reckoning of grace ; m and saying, 
" Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not 
imputed sin, &c." 

Nearly ten times in that same chapter he re- 
peats the word ' imputation/ To be short; Paul 
compares the worker and the non-worker : leav- 
ing none between these two. He denies that 
righteousness is imputed to the worker: to the 
non-worker he asserts that righteousness is im- 
puted, if he but believe. It is not possible for 
Freewill to escape or slip away here with her 
endeavour, or pains : for she must be numbered 
either with the worker, or the non-worker. If 
with the worker, you hear in this place that no 
righteousness is imputed to her; if with the non- 
worker, who however believes in God, righteous- 
ness is imputed to her. But then she will not be 
Freewill ; she will be the new creature — the soul 
renewed by faith. n Now, if righteousness be not 
imputed to him that worketh, it is plain that his 
works are nothing but sins, wicked "and ungodly 
acts in the sight of God. 

Nor is it possible for any Sophist to turn saucy, 
and say, ' though the man be wicked, yet his 

m Reputatione gratia.'] ( The account which grace takes of 
character:' — rep. is most correctly englished by ' reckon ,' 
but Luther uses it throughout the whole of this passage inter- 
changeably with ' imputo.' 

n Renovata creatura per fidem^] As if the Lord's people were 
renewed by faith ! whence conies their faith then ? So he 
had said above, acquiescing in Erasmus's term, ' renatus per 
fidem ;' which I there called ambiguous, but we now see to 
have been meant wrongly. — See above. Part iv. Sect. xlv. 
note t . 



426 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



part v. work may not be wicked/ For Paul lays hold, not 

on the person of the man simply, but on the man 

at work, for this very purpose, that he may de- 
clare in the most explicit terms, how that the very 
works and endeavours of the man are condemned, 
whatsoever those may be, and under whatsoever 
name or species they may be classed. Moreover, 
it is of good works that he treats, because it is of 
justification and merit that he is discoursing — 
and when he speaks of a man that worketh, he 
speaks universally of all working men, and of all 
their works ; but especially of good and honest 
works : else his division into worker and non- 
worker would not stand. 

I here omit those most powerful arguments 
which are drawn from the purpose of grace, from 
promise, from the power of the law, from original 
sin, and from the election of God ; of which there 
is not one, but what alone, and by itself, utterly 
takes away Freewill. For if grace comes from 
the purpose or predestination of God, it comes 
by necessity, not by our pains or endeavour; as 
I have already shewn. So, if God promised 
grace before the law, as Paul argues both here 
and in Galatians ; then it does not come from our 
works, or from the law ; else the promise will be 
nothing. So, faith also will be nothing (yet it is 
said that Abraham was justified by it before the 
law), if works have any efficacy. So, whereas the 
law is the strength of sin, only manifesting, and not 
taking away, sin ; it makes the conscience guilty 
before God, and threatens wrath : this is what is 
meant by that saying, " The law worketh wrath." 
How then could it be, that righteousness is ob- 
tained by the law ? And, if we are not profited 
by the law, how can we be profited by Freewill 
when acting without it. 



SEC. xx. 

Luther 
omits 
much 
which he 
might in- 
sist upon. 



' No Freewill* follows from God's " purpose and grace :" 
" Whom he did foreknow, them he did predestinate ; whom 
he did predestinate, them he also called." The calling is of 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 427 

Again ; seeing, we are all under sin and damn- SEC » xx « 

ation through the one offence of the one man 

Adam, how can we attempt any thing which is 
not sin, and which is not damnable ? For when 
he says all, he excepts no one ; neither the power 
of Freewill, nor any workman ; whether he work 
or work not, endeavour or endeavour not, he will 
necessarily be comprehended amongst the all, 
with the others. Nor could we have sinned, 
and been condemned, by that single sin of 
Adam's, unless it were our sin. For who could 
be condemned for another man's sin, especially 
in the sight of God? But that sin is not made 
ours by imitation, or by some subsequent act of 
ours ; since this could not be that one sin of 
Adam, as being that which we, and not he, hath 
done : it becomes ours, by birth. But this is not 
the place for discussing that question. However, 
original sin suffers not that Freewill do any thing 
else, save sin and be damned. p 

predestination therefore, not of Freewill j " according to the 
eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord." 
— f No Freewill' follows from God's promise, which was ante- 
cedent to the law, and therefore cannot be dependent upon our 
works ; which are by the law : indeed, in its very nature, as 
Paul argues, promise is opposed to work. — ' No Freewill' fol- 
lows from faith (" the just shall live by faith 5" " they which 
be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham") ; of which the 
law — that is, works — is not. (Galat. iii. 11,12.) — c No Free- 
will ' follows from the law : for even the knv worketh wrath — 
and yet she is a help ; Freewill does not even know what sin 
is, without her. 

p Luther has his eye, all the way, upon Romans v. 12 — 19. 
His account is, Adam's sin is ours ' nascendo — by our being 
born of him, as we are ; bom of him who did it: making us 
voluntary agents in being born, and God the propagator of sin, 
in causing that we should be born from him — or, as he has 
described it, making us out of him. (See above, Part iv. 
Sect, x.j and, for objections to his statement, note z there- 
upon.) However, Luther's conclusion is right, though he 
arrives less correctly at it : the truth is, we are born having 
previously sinned, guilty, "" children of wrath ;" how then can 
we do any thing good ? Luther — how near is he to the truth, 
yet does not reach it ! Observe, he will not have it e sin after 
birth/ and he will have it e our own and not Adam's only :' but 



428 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part v. These arguments, then, I omit, because they are 
' most manifest, and most powerful: besides, I have 
said something about them already. Now, if I 
had a mind to recite all that Paul only has said 
to the subversion of Freewill, I could not do this 
better, than by discussing the whole of Paul's 
writings in the form of a perpetual commentary, 
and shewing that this so vaunted power of Free- 
will is confuted in almost every single word of 
his : just as I have done in these third and fourth 
chapters. My special object in thus exhibiting 
these chapters has been ; first, to shew the stupid 
drowsiness with which we have all nodded over 
his writings — reading them, clear as they are, in 
such a way as not to have the least idea that they 
contain the strongest possible arguments against 
Freewill — secondly, to shew the folly of that 
confidence which leans on the authority and 
writings of the old doctors — and thirdly, that I 
might leave it as matter of thought, what these 
most manifest arguments are capable of eifecting, 
if handled with diligence and judgment. 
sec. xxi. For my own part I am greatly astonished, that, 

whereas Paul so often uses those universal terms 

Luther's < A11 , < jjone/ < Not/ < Nowhere/ < Without/ 

own view _ * ■ . y y n i 

of Paul. as for instance, " 1 hey are all gone out ot the 
way," " There is none righteous," " There is 
none that doeth good, no not one," " All have 
been made sinners, and damned, by the offence of 
one." " We are justified by faith without the law, 
without works;" (so that, if a man had a mind to 
speak otherwise, he could not however speak more 
clearly, or more explicitly) ; it is a matter of sur- 
prise to me, I say, how it hath come to pass, that, 

he has not * that distinct individuality of subsistence given to us 
in the creation of the Man, which makes us truly one with him 
in his deed;' neither has he ( the power and order before 
given ;' neither has he ' God's veracity to be shewn in inflict- 
ing the curse.' (See as above.) He is somewhat clearer,, how- 
ever, than our ninth Article -, which wants distinctness, as well 
as fulness. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 429 

in opposition to these universal words and senti- sec.xxi. 
ments, contrary, nay contradictory, ones have pre- 
vailed. As for instance ; ' There are some who do 
not go out of the way, who are not unjust, not 
wicked, not sinners, not damned. There is some- 
thing in man which is good, and leans towards 
good :' as if the man, whosoever he be, that in- 
clines to good, were not comprehended in that say- 
ing 'All/ ' None/ 'Not/ I, for my part, should 
not have any thing to oppose or reply to Paul, if I 
wished it ; but should be compelled to comprehend 
the power of my Freewill, together with its endea- 
vour, amongst those 'alls' and ' nones/ of which 
Paul speaks; unless some new art of grammar, or 
some new use of speech, be introduced. 

One might perhaps be allowed to suspect a 
trope, and to torture the words, which I have 
selected, into some other meaning, if he used such 
an expression but once, or only in one place. But, 
in fact, he uses such expressions perpetually — 
and not only so, but uses both affirmatives and 
negatives together ; so handling his sentiment in 
a way of contrast and distribution — by which he 
arrays the several parts against each other, on 
both sides — that not only the nature of the words, 
and the sentence itself, but the subsequent, pre- 
ceding, and immediate context also, together with 
the scope and very body of the whole discussion, 
unite in establishing one common conclusion, that 
Paul means, ' without faith in Christ there is 
nothing but sin and damnation. q It was in this 

i The words above cited are a sufficient illustration of 
Luther's meaning in the several terms — ( words/ ( sentence/ 
' contrast/ f division/ ' context/ ' scope/ c discussion at large/ 
( mind of the writer.' — Extra f idem Christl, I translate accord- 
ing to Luther's meanings not according to my own view of the 
Apostle's argument. Both here and in Galatians, it is common 
to represent Paul as speaking of ' faith in Christ ' as opposed 
to c works/ But in both places it is ' the Law' as opposed to 
( the Gospel/ of which he is speaking : in both places he is 
shewing, in opposition to Judaizers, ( that the Law cannot 



430 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART V. 



SC. XXII. 

Paul's 
crown. 



way, that I promised to confute Freewill, so that 
all my adversaries should not be able to resist 
me. I think I have done so : even though they 
should not yield to my sentiment, as vanquished ; 
or hold their peace. It is not within the compass 
of my power to bring them to this : this is the gift 
of God's Spirit. 

But, before we hear the Evangelist John, let us 
add PauPs finish to his argument on this subject, 
as contained in that Epistle • prepared, where this 
shall not satisfy, to set the whole of Paul's 
writings in array against Freewill, by a perpetual 
commentary. In Romans viii. after r dividing the 
whole human race into two parts, flesh and 
Spirit, as Christ also does in John iii. he speaks 
thus : ( They that are after the flesh do mind 
the things of the flesh ; but they that are 
after the Spirit do mind the things of the Spirit/ 

save -, the Gospel only can.' — But then, that this Gospel may 
save, e it must be believed with the heart { ' Christ must be 
believed in and into! Under the right interpretation of these 
passages then, two steps are wanting to Luther's conclusion, 
( Paul condemns Freewill.' Paul says only, ( Without the faith 
of Christ there is nothing but sin and damnation.' But that 
faith must be received, or obeyed, before it can save ; and that 
reception or obedience is e not of the nature power of Freewill, 
but of the supernature power of God's Spirit.' — There are texts, 
more than enough, to prove both these points ; I would rather 
say, Scripture is explicit enough in her witness to both these 
points — ("Taking vengeance on those that know not God, and 
those that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." — 
<e No man can come unto me, except the Father, which hath 
sent me, draw him:") so that there can be no question what 
is truth in this matter ; though Luther does not come at his 
conclusion legitimately, through misuse of his premises. 

r Ubi genus.'] Referring to the preceding verses, " Them 
which are in Christ Jesus j who walk not after the flesh, but 
after the Spirit." — As to what follows, it has been seen already 
(Part iv. Sect. xlii. notes ' k ) that I do not admit the parallel. 
Paul clearly divides men into two classes ; but the Lord, in 
John iii. is shewing the necessity of a new and spiritual 
birth. The opposition is not between those who have, and 
those who have not, this birth ; but between nature power of 
procreation, and Spirit power of procreation ; Adam produces 
his like, and the Holy Ghost produces His like. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 431 

That Paul, here, calls all carnal who are not spi- sc.xxii. 
ritual, is plain both from the division and oppo- 
sition between flesh and Spirit, and also from 
Paul's own words which follow. "Ye are not 
in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if but the Spirit of 
Christ dwell in you. Now if any man have not 
the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." For what 
else does he mean here, by the words ' Ye are not 
in the flesh, but in the Spirit/ than that those who 
have not the Spirit are necessarily in the flesh? 
But he who is not Christ's — whose is he else, than 
the devil's ? It stands good therefore, that those 
who have not the Spirit are in the flesh, and under 
Satan. 

Let us now see^ what he thinks of the endea- 
vour and power of Freewill in the carnal. 
" They that are in the flesh cannot please God." 
And again ; " The mind of the flesh is death :" 
and again, " The mind of the flesh is enmity 
against God." Again, "It is not subject to the 
law of God, neither indeed can be." 5 Let the 
advocate for Freewill answer me here, how that 
which is death, which is displeasing to God, which 
is enmity against God, which is disobedient to 
God, and which cannot obey him ; can endeavour 
after good ! For he has not been pleased to say, 
/the mind of the flesh is dead, or hostile to God/ 
but " is death itself, is enmity itself:" to which it 
is impossible, that it be subjected to the law of God, 
or please God ; as he had also said just before, 
" For what the law could not do, in that it was 



s Sensus carnis. non est suhjectus."] Sensus, f the mind in 
action ;' or rather the result of that action - 3 c what it thinks or 
desires.' It is not so properly the mind, or desire,, that is not 
and cannot be subject (as is commonly understood) ; but the 
flesh, that is, the unrenewed body itself: (fipovrjpa, according 
to the analogy of language, should be ' the desire formed,' 
not f the faculty forming it,' and therefore, it is not this (ppovijpia 
but the substance that forms it (the flesh — cap};), which ought 
to be subject, but is not. 



432 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

partv. made weak by the flesh, God hath done/ &c. 
I know, as well you do, Origen's tale about three 

1 Legi impossibile."] Luther does not explain, as we might 
have wished him to do, this most difficult text : but the consi- 
derations which we have already entertained respecting the 
flesh and the Spirit will assist us to unravel it. — In the pre- 
ceding chapter, Paul had been describing a very remarkable 
temptation, with which, for his own good and that of the 
church, he had been visited since his conversion. He had been 
tempted to think that he must still obey the law ,• and, having 
been put upon trying to do this, had acquired a deep know- 
ledge of his own state : which is also that of every called child 
of God. He discovered, that he had a law in his members (his 
body) which warred against the law of his mind, and brought 
him into captivity to the law of sin which was in his mem- 
bers. He sighed for deliverance from that body — fitly called 
a dead body — whose law made him so wretched. He was 
assured that he should one day possess it, through the gift of 
God in Christ Jesus. At present, however, his state was that 
of a person serving two laws, in the two distinct parts of his 
frame. But still, even now, he was not condemned. Why ? 
because he was a man in Christ.* Why, as a man in Christ, 
had he no condemnation ? Because the Holy Ghost, as had by 
him in Christ, had delivered him from the thraldom and bond- 
age of that law which still reigned in his members. Why 
had he the Holy Ghost in Christ Jesus ? Because God, by 
sending his own Son in flesh of sin, had condemned sin in 
the flesh j that is, had executed sentence of death upon this 
sinful flesh, and could now, in consideration of that sentence 
so borne, raise up both Him and that people for whom and 
with whom he had borne that sentence, into a new state of 
being, in which they should be the subjects of spiritual influ- 
ences in both parts of their frame : in whom even here, 
whilst tabernacling in their flesh of sin, the foretaste and first- 
fruits of this grace is shewn in their being renewed, and dwelt 
in, by the Holy Ghost, f Thus, they have that done for them 
which the law could not do, because it was weak through 
our flesh's being what it is ; they are enabled to fulfil the 
righteousness of the law — or rather to yield to God a service 

* I perfectly approve Griesbach's improved reading, which casts " Who 
walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit," as read in chap. viii. 1. 
into the interior margin. It breaks the connection of the argument; and 
may very naturally he supposed to have been interpolated from verse 4. 

•f I have here stated the reality, which is more commonly set forth by the 
Holy Ghost in figure ; the dying, quickening, rising, and now sitting of the 
Lord's elect in and with Him. (See Rom. vi. Ephes. i. ii. Coloss. ii. iii.) 
God's eternal, covenanted design of raising them up, in Christ, from that 
death into which they were contemplated as having brought themselves by 
their fall in and withAdam, is the basis and element of this reality. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE; 433 

sorts of affection, one of which is called the flesh by SC. xxu. 
him ; another, the soul ; another, the spirit ; and of ' 

which is far more righteous, because more adapted to that full 
manifestation which He has now made of himself, than a law 
obedience would, or could be. — Hereafter, as he proceeds to 
shew most triumphantly, in the progress of this chapter, the 
other part of their frame will also have its triumph : the body 
which has death in it, and has yet assuredly to die, shall be 
quickened by the same Spirit which hath already quickened 
and dwelt in their souls, and shall live. This, which had been 
glanced at in chap. vii. 25. and is so distinctly affirmed in 
rv. 11. 21. 23. of this chapter, receives its seal and crown in 
1 Cor. xv. where the paean is sung, and the victory ascribed to 
its giver and communicator. " But thanks be to God which 
giveth us the victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ." — I have 
found it impossible to render a consistent account of these two 
chapters (to which the precedent sixth may be added), verse by- 
verse, and clause by clause, on any other principle than this -, 
which makes f flesh' the substance of the body, and e spirit' the 
renewed mind. (See Part iv. Sect, xxxvii. xli. xlii. and much that 
has elsewhere gone before.) There is much emphasis in verse 1 . 
Howbeit* (that is, although with the flesh they serve the law 
of sin) there is now (opposed to I thank God, chap. vii. 25. for 
what shall be) no condemnation (all these out-breakings and 
manifestations of evil are forgiven, and not allowed abidingly 
to mar the peace of their souls — for " Who shall lay any thing, 
&c. &c." viii. 33 — 39.) to them which are in Christ Jesus.f (It 
is of the Lord's called that he here bears this testismony, as 
appears from the context : a testimony, which is in the Lord's 
time realized to all his elect, and for the same reason — God 
has condemned their sin which is in their flesh — " Who is he 
that condemneth ? It is Christ that died.") Hath made me free ; an 

* The argument is closely connected and compacted from verse 24. of the 
preceding chapter. He pants. He thanks God. He sums up his state. 
apa ovv. ovdev &pa vvv. 

■f- The people of God are said to be in Christ Jesus, with reference to two 
distinct states : in Him, by covenant and predestinative union from before 
the worlds (" According as he hath chosen us in Him, &c." " Grace 
which was given us in Him, &c") ; in Him by realized, conscious and effi- 
cacious union, through the calling of the Holy Ghost. (" Andronicus and 
Junia. . . .who also were in Christ before me." " I knew a man in Christ, 
&c") A third state maybe distinguished as that of sacramental union (see 
Part iv. Sect. xlv. note t), which is distinct and separable from the other two ?. 
bearing analogy to that entrance which the Lord had into his kingdom, by 
his baptism. — The blessedness here described belongs to his called, but it i& 
the ordained, earned and waiting portion of all his elect ; who, as they are 
one by one brought by the Holy Ghost into the knowledge of this grace, 
regard themselves as those who have virtually died in and with Christ, and 
who therefore are dead, and have their life hid with Christ in God. Hence 
they live and walk after that part of their frame which lives — into which 
life has already been introduced ; not according to that which is virtually 
dead. 

2 p 



434 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part V. which the soul is the middle one — what may be 

turned towards either side, the flesh or the spirit. 

But these are his own dreams ; he only tells, he 
does not prove them. Paul here calls whatsoever has 
not the Spirit flesh, as I have already shewn." So 

habitual deliverance is not incompatible with an occasional 
ravished subjection — such as he has described in chap. vii. The 
law of sin and death is clearly the law of evil which is in the mem- 
bers, or flesh, or body. The impossibility of the law — the law 
gave no power, and therefore could not possibly get itself to 
be obeyed by a creature whose substance is such as fallen 
man's. Likeness of flesh of sin does not deny reality any more 
than in Philip, ii. 7- Condemned etc. not only passed the sen- 
tence but inflicted the judgment.* Righteousness of the 
law is not what is commonly meant by it, ' the act, or 
ground, of justification 5' but ' the enactment' — e the matter of 
the statute' — Biicaiw^a, not hacaioGvvn. Wlio ivalk — denoting 
habitual conduct, aim and principle. — Their conformity with 
the law is circuitous, not direct j incidental, not deliberate 
and designed. They "walk in the Spirit" (Gal. v. 16.) ; that 
is, ' in or after their renewed mind :' just as it is said here, 
Who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. — I cannot 
forbear remarking what a close parallel that whole chapter 
(Gal. v.) is to this seventh and eighth of Romans, and how truly 
the whole rule or law of the Lord's called ones (" Ye have 
been called unto liberty") is set out in the four words which I 
have recited above. For what is, not only the whole law, but 
even the whole volume of Scripture to us, save so far as it is 
apprehended and received by our renewed mind, through the 
inspiration of the Holy Ghost ? 

u I cannot agree with Luther here. Origen is more nearly 
right than he, if by soul may be understood ' the will with its 
affections 'f and the distinction is surely recognised in Scrip- 
ture, when Paul prays for the Thessalonians " that their whole 
spirit and soul and body may be preserved blameless unto the 
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thess. v. 23.) According 
to Luther, ' those that are after the flesh,' and ( the flesh,' are 
the same substance ; whereas, in truth, the distinction of cha- 
racter is made by these constituent parts of their frame, accord- 
ing to which they walk (that is, habitually act) severally. 
The natural man (^x t/c ^ s ) li yes a ^ er ms flesh, and is carnal : 

* Compare 1 Peter iv. 1 — 6. also iii. 18 — 22. « Christ's flesh condemned, 
and made to suffer or die,' is not only the burden of Scripture, but the 
essence of the reality of the foundation of God's new creation transactions 
in Him : even as the knowledge of this body of ours, what it was in its 
formation, what it was in and became by the Fall, what it is to the unregene- 
rate, and specially what it is to the regenerated sons and daughters of 
Adam, is one of the great keys to the mystery of man, and to christian 
experience, 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 435 

that those highest virtues of the best of men are sc - XXIL 
* in the flesh ;' that is, are dead, enemies to God, ' 
not subject to the law of God, nor capable of 
being subjected to it, and displeasing to God. 
For Paul does not only say that they are 
not subjected, but that neither can they be sub- 
jected. So Christ also in Matthew vii. " A cor- 
rupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit." And 
in Matthew xii. " How can ye, being evil, speak 
good things?" You see here, that we not only 
speak evil, but even cannot speak good. And he 
who in another place says, that we, being evil, 
know how to give good gifts to our children, still 
denies that we do good even in the very act of 
giving good things ; inasmuch as the creature of 
God (which we give) is good; but neither are 
we ourselves good, nor do we give our good 
things well : and when so saying, he speaks to all ; 
yea, even to his disciples. So that these twin 
sentiments of Paul stand good : " The just lives 
by faith ;>' and " Whatsoever is not of faith is 
sin:" of which the latter flows from the former. 
For if there is nothing but faith by which we can 
be justified; it is evident, that those who have not 

the spiritual man {7rvevf.ia7iKo<s) — lie who has a 7ri>evfia — that is, 
e an Holy-Ghost-renewed spirit' — lives after his renewed spirit, 
and is spiritual. Thus the spirit and the man, and the flesh 
and the man, are distinct substances severally 5 though the 
one includes the other. — Still, Luther's conclusion is not 
affected. He who does not live after the spirit, but after the 
flesh, does only evil ; because that flesh, after which he lives 
is only evil ; ' defecated' evil : and, except and until a man be 
renewed in the spirit of his mind, and thus be made spiritual, 
he neither does, nor can do any thing good. Nay further, if 
he be thus renewed, and when he hath been thus renewed, it 
is only so far as his renew r ed spirit be impelled and sustained 
by the Holy Ghost, that he either resisteth evil, or worketh 
good. There are seasons, w r hen, for the fuller manifestation 
of God unto his real good, the Holy Ghost, who never leaves 
his temple, is but as the friend who sitteth by, neither speak- 
ing, nor putting out a finger to help. So far as he is left to 
the endeavour and power of Freewill, therefore, all that is here 
said by Paul about not pleasing God, &c. belongs to him. 

2f2 



436 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part v. faith are not yet justified. Now those who are not 

justified are still sinners; and sinners are corrupt 

trees, which can do nothing but sin, and bear cor- 
rupt fruit. So then, Freewill is nothing but the 
servant of sin, death and Satan : which neither 
doeth, nor is able to do or to attempt, any thing 
but evil. v 
sc.xxm. Add that example in chapter x. taken from 

Esaias, Ci I have been found of them that sought 

Grace ex- me no f-. j ] iave ]3 eeri mac le manifest to those 

emphiied 

v Luther adduces these expressions in Romans viii. as the 
crown of Paul's testimony against Freewill. The flesh — 
meaning, as I maintain, the natural, unrenewed substance of 
man, with all that is in it (and the unrenewed man has 
nothing else) — is enmity against God. — He confirms this say- 
ing by two of Christ's, which say we can do nothing else j not 
merely that we do evil, but that we can do nothing else, from 
our very composition ; being like e corrupt trees,' "being evil." 
And in another place: ' Ye "being evil," do evil, even whilst 
ye are giving good gifts.' — Then, by insinuation and impli- 
cation, he proves the same from Paul's twin sayings. If the 
just man lives by faith, he that hath not faith is not just; 
and, if not just, he is a sinner. — If whatsoever be not of 
faith is sin, whatever is done by mere Freewill is sin ; be- 
cause Freewill has nothing to do with faith, but is by the suppo- 
sition perfectly distinct from it : neither has faith any thing to do 
with Freewill, but has another origin. Whatsoever it doth there- 
fore, not being of faith, is sin. So that Freewill is only sin. — 
I object to the application of these two texts in this connec- 
tion. It is the eternal state of the already justified person, which 
is proclaimed by tf shall live." (See Habak. ii. 4. Galat. hi. 11. 
Heb. x.3S.) Faith then is the acceptable principle; without which 
(it is implied) there shall be no acceptance to any man. Freewill 
has no faith ; therefore does nothing acceptable. — But still 
the fair application is, shall not live; not does only sin. — 
'.' Whatsoever is not of faith, &c." if Luther interprets rightly y 
proves his point ; because Freewill, not acting in and by faith, 
can do nothing, therefore, but what is sin. — But that text means, 
r -if a man is not satisfied as to the rectitude of his own act, but 
doubts about it,' it is sin. — This text therefore does not fairly 
apply ; because Freewill may have no doubts — yet still is 
damned, whether she doubt or not. On the other hand, a 
person may sin in some particular act, by acting without 
faith, yet not be a condemned person : it is of such that Paul 
speaks. — Thus, although the principles which Luther would 
establish from these two texts be true - f these texts, rightly 
understood, do not prove them. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 437 

who inquired not after me." He says these things sc.xxiii. 
about the Gentiles ; because it hath been given to """; 
them to know and hear of Christ, when they could Gentiles"" 
not even think of him before, much less seek after called. 
him, or prepare themselves for him, by the power 
of Freewill. It is abundantly plain from this 
example, that grace comes so truly gratuitously, 
that not even a thought about it, much less any 
thing of endeavour or pains precedes its approach. 
Thus Paul also, when he was Saul, what did he 
by that most exalted degree of Freewill which he 
possessed ? Assuredly, he was revolving the best 
and most honest things in his mind, if mere rea- 
son be inquired of. But see what endeavour it is 
of his, by which he finds grace : he is not seeking 
it; nay, it is even by raving like a madman 
against it, that he receives his portion. On the 
other hand, speaking of the Jews in the ninth chap- 
ter, he says that the Gentiles which did not follow 
after righteousness have attained to righteousness, 
even the righteousness which is of faith ; but that 
Israel which followed after the law of righteous- 
ness hath not attained to the law of righteous- 
ness. What can any advocate for Freewill 
mutter against these sayings? The Gentiles, 
when filled to the full with impiety and all sorts 
of vices, receive righteousness freely from a pity- 
ing God. The Jews, seeking after righteous- 
ness with the greatest pains and endeavours, are 
disappointed. Is not this just to say, that the 
endeavour of Freewill is vain, whilst endeavour- 
ing after the best things; and that she herself 
rather makes bad worse, stumbles and runs back- 
wards No one can say that they have not tried 
hard, with the utmost power of Freewill. Paul 
himself bears them this testimony in his tenth 
chapter, " That they have a zeal for God, but not 

x Sublapsum referri.'] < Omnia rursus 

In pejus mere, ac retro sublapsa referri.' 

Virg. G. I. v. 200. 201. 



438 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part v. according to knowledge." In the Jews therefore, 
' none of those excellencies are wanting which we 
ascribe to Freewill, and yet nothing follows ; nay, 
the contrary result follows. In the Gentiles none 
of those excellencies which we ascribe to Freewill 
are present, but still the righteousness of God 
follows. What is this, but to have it confirmed, 
as well by the most manifest example of both 
nations, as by the clearest testimony of Paul at 
the same time, that ( grace is bestowed freely 
upon the undeserving, nay upon the unworthiest 
of human beings ; whilst it is not obtained by 
any pains, endeavours, or performances, great or 
small, even of the best and most respectable of 
men, though seeking and following after righte- 
ousness with a burning zeal/ * 

sc.xxiv. L e t us also come to John, who is of himself an 
abundant and able devastator of Freewill. In the 

devourer. vei 7 beginning of his Gospel, he ascribes such a 
blindness to Freewill, as that she is not able to 
see the light of truth — so far is she from having 
power to endeavour after it. For thus speaks he, 
Ci The light shineth in darkness, but the darkness 
comprehendeth it not." And presently : u He 
was in the world, and the world knew him not. He 
came unto his own, and his own received him not." 
What does he mean, think you, by the world ? 
Will you except any man from the number 
included under this name, except he be created 
anew by the Holy Ghost ? Indeed, it is a pecu- 
liar use 2 which this Apostle makes of the word 

y For some considerations which seem desirable,, to mitigate 
the harshness of this statement, see above, Part iv. Sect. 
xxxiv. note d ; also Part iv. Sect. x. Part hi. Sect, xxxviii. 
note *, 

z Peculiaris.~] Luther means peculiar to this Apostle, as con- 
trasted with the other sacred writers : but it is not confined to 
John. Paul has it also, Ephes. ii. 1*2. Coloss. i. 6. It may 
be doubted too, whether he ever speaks of the world uni- 
versally ; that is, of a strict c all men,' { all mankind / 
though his contrast is varied. Sometimes it is the world at 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 439 

' world/ expressing the whole race of man, with- sc.xxiv. 

out exception, by it. Whatever he says about mmm 

the worlds therefore, is meant concerning Freewill, 
as that which is the most excellent thing in man. 
Now it is said by this Apostle, i that the world 
knew not the true light. The world hateth Christ 
and his people. The world knoweth not, neither 
seeth the Holy Ghost. The whole world lieth in 
wickedness ; or in the wicked one. All that is in 
the world is the lust of the flesh, the lust of the 
eyes, and the pride of life.— Love not the world/ 
Again ; " Ye are of the world, saith he. The 
world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because 
I testify of it that its deeds are evil/* All these 
and many like sayings, then, are so many procla- 
mations about Freewill ; that is, about the prin- 
cipal constituent part, which reigneth in the 
world, under the empire of Satan. For even this 
John speaks of the world in a way of opposition ; 
meaning by it, whatsoever of the world is not 
translated into the Spirit ; a as Christ says to his 

large, opposed to the Jews j sometimes the multitude of the 
unregenerate, opposed to the called people of God, as Luther 
afterwards distinguishes (" Nam et ipse Johannes, #c.") : which 
is a more correct distinction than Christ's people, and the 
seed of the wicked one. For, until called by the effectual 
working of the Holy Ghost, the children of the kingdom are 
often found to be as fierce opponents of the truth, and of its 
children, as the devil's seed. What was Paul ? — Luther does 
not notice the former of these oppositions, but it is a necessary 
one to mark. Clearly, it obtains in the words under consi- 
deration. " He was in the world (that is, in the material 
world — on the earth) and the world knew him not : he came unto 
his own, &c." The contrast here is between the world at 
large, and his peculiarly connected ones, the Jews. And so, 
in John iii. <( God so loved the world, &c." It is all kindreds 
and tongues, and languages, &<\ contrasted with the natural 
seed of Abraham. The clear sense here assists in establishing 
this use of the term, and serves to confirm the ascription of it 
to John iii. 16, &c. 

a Translation in spiritum.'] We might render ''made spiritual ;■ 
but this would efface the distinction which he means to mark. 
He opposes Christ to the world 5 making Christ the Spirit, in 
contrast with Adam, the flesh. So, by realized union with 
Christ, we are transferred from the world into the Spirit, 



440 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

•PARTV. Apostles,, " I have taken you out of the world, 
■"" ' and have constituted you, &c." If now there 
were any in the world, who strove for good by 
the power of Freewill — as must be the case if 
Freewill could really do any thing — John ought 
properly to have moderated his expression out of 
respect to these, that he might not involve them 
by a general expression in the multitude of 
crimes, of which he accuses the world. From his 
not doing so, it is evident that he charges Free- 
will with all the crimes with which he charges the 
world ; since whatever the world does, it does by 
the power of Freewill; that is, by the under- 
standing and the will, the most excellent of its 
constituent parts. It follows : 

" But as many as received him, to them gave 
he power to become the sons of God; even to 
them which believe in his name : which were 
born not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, 
nor of the will of man, but of God/ 5 

Having made this division, he rejects from 
the kingdom of Christ e bloods/ 6 the will of 
the flesh/ and c the will of man/ By ' bloods' 
I suppose him to mean the Jews ; that is, those 
who had a mind to be sons of the kingdom, be- 
cause they were sons of Abraham and of the 
Fathers ; boasting forsooth of their descent. — 
By ' the will of the flesh' I understand the pains 
with which that people exercised themselves in 
law works. For the flesh, here, signifies carnal 
persons which have not the Spirit ; as being those 
who have will and endeavour, but, since there is 
no Ho]y Ghost in this will and endeavour, have 
them carnally. By i the will of man,' I under- 
stand the pains which mankind in general, all 
men take — whether under the law, or without the 
law — the Gentiles, say, or whom you will — to 
find favour with God. The meaning therefore is, 
neither by a birth of the flesh, nor by a zeal for the 
law, nor by any other human means, are they made 
sons of God, but only by a divine birth. If then 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 441 

they are not born of the flesh, nor trained by the SC.xxiV- 

law, nor obtained by any human discipline, but 

are born again of God ; it is plain that Freewill is 

of no avail -here. For I think the word ' man/ 

here, is taken, in the Hebrew acceptation, for any 

one whatsoever; just as 'flesh' is taken, by contrast, 

for the people of Israel not having the Spirit : 

and c will/ again, for the highest power in man ; 

that is, the principal ingredient in Freewill. 

But grant that we may not understand each 
word correctly, still the sum and substance of 
the assertion is most plain ; namely, that John, 
by this division, rejects whatsoever is not of 
divine begetting, in saying that men are not made 
the sons of God but by being born of God; 
which is effected, according to his own inter- 
pretation, by believing in his name. Now in this 
rejection, the will of man, or Freewill, not being 
a thing born of God, nor yet faith, is necessarily 
included. If Freewill availed any thing, the will 
of man ought not to be rejected by John ; neither 
ought men to be withdrawn from it, and sent to 
faith and new birth only : else that might be said 
to him, which was said in Isaiah v. " Woe unto 
you who call good evil." But now, since he 
equally rejects 'bloods/ 'the will of the flesh/ and 
6 the will of man/ it is certain, that the will of man 
has no more power towards making sons of God, 
than bloods or fleshly nativity. Now, no one 
counts it doubtful whether fleshly birth makes, or 
doth not make, sons of God ; as Paul also tells us 
in Romans ix. "They which are the children of 
the flesh, these are not the children of God :" 
which he proves by the examples of Ishmael and 
Esau, b 

b ' The will of the flesh' and ' the will of man' separated and 
distinguished, and both named, must, upon every conceivable 
interpretation of those terms, exclude every thing belonging to 
the human will from this generative power ; and therefore 
decide the question as to the power of Freewill, in bringing us 



442 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



sc. xxv. 

John Bap- 
tist's testi- 
mony. 



part v. The same John introduces the Baptist speaking 
— thus ; cc Of whose fulness have all we received, 
grace for grace." 

He speaks of grace received by us out of the 
fulness of Christ ; but for the sake of what merit, 
or endeavour? For the grace, says he, forsooth 
of Christ : c just as Paul also speaks in Romans v. 
" The grace of God, and the gift by grace of one 
man Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." 
Where now is the endeavour of Freewill, by 

to the inheritance of God's children. But I should rather 
understand s bloods' to express natural birth generally (we 
have not it by descent from our parents) ; c will of the flesh' 
for our own personal and individual will, which we have by na- 
ture 3 and ' will of man' for the ordinance and appointment of 
man generally : it is not a human device j what men have chosen 
and procured for themselves, or what can, in any individual 
instance, be conferred by man, one or many, willing it to ano- 
ther. A man may leave his estate at death, or confer a liberal 
gift in his lifetime, but he cannot will or bestow new birth. — 
Luther speaks as if we were e begotten' by believing ( f nascendo 
ex Deo, quod fit credendo in nomine ejus') ; like Erasmus's 
c renatus per fidem,' which, as we saw, he does not object to : 
but the truth is, we must be begotten again before we can 
believe j and then, believing, we take our place amongst God's 
adopted children. So that there is a sense in which we are rege- 
nerated by faith, inasmuch as it is by faith we are manifested to be 
of the Lord's children : but the birth, or generation more pro- 
perly, spoken of in verse 13. is prior to faith j so that it can- 
not in this view be said, c nascor ex Deo, credendo in nomine 
Jesu Christi.' (See above, Part iv. Sect. xlv. note *j also 
Part v. Sect. xix. note n .) 

c p r0 gratid scilicet Christi.'] Luther seems to understand 
him as saying e grace in return for, or on account of, his grace \ 
that is, the grace which Christ has himself shewn. So he clearly 
explains himself afterwards, when he says f gratiam eis impetrat 
per suum sanguinem.' In this view, it is parallel with the pas- 
sage which he cites from Romans v. — It is more commonly 
interpreted ' grace for grace ;' that is, one degree or measure of 
grace for another. But Luther is the more correct : although 
the grace which we have from Christ is in reality grace given 
to us by the Father in the same instant in which the grace is 
given to Christ, by means of which he has done and endured 
every thing personally ; still it comes to us, and is actually 
conferred upon us, in the way of fruit and consequence of his 
actings — grace bestowed on us ; for the sake of grace acted 
previously by himself. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 443 

which grace is procured ? Here John says, not sc. xxv. 
only that grace is received without any endea- 
vour of ours, but even by another's grace, or 
another's merit ; namely, that of one man, Jesus 
Christ. Either therefore it is false, that we 
receive our grace for the sake of another's grace 5 
or it is evident that Freewill is nothing; for the 
two cannot stand together — that the grace of God 
is on the one hand so cheap, as to be obtained 
commonly, and every where, by the paltry endea- 
vour of any man you please ; and on the other so 
dear, as to be freely bestowed upon us for and 
by the grace of one so great a man only. 

I would at the same time admonish the advo- 
cates of Freewill in this place, that in asserting 
Freewill they are deniers of Christ. For, if I obtain 
the grace of God through my own endeavour, what 
need is there of the grace of Christ for my receiving 
of grace ? or, what is wanting to me, when I have 
obtained the grace of God? But Diatribe has 
said, all the Sophists also say, that we obtain the 
grace of God by our own endeavour, and are 
prepared for the reception of it, not of condig- 
nity indeed, but of congruity : which is abso- 
lutely denying Christ, for whose grace's sake 
the Baptist here testifies that we receive 
grace. For, as to that figment about condig- 
nity and congruity, I have already confuted it; 
shewing that these are empty words which in 
reality mean merit of condignity/ and have more 
impiety in them than the Pelagian assertions; as 
I have declared. So that the impious Sophists, 
with Diatribe at their head, deny the Lord Christ 
who bought us, more than the Pelagians, or any 
heretics have done : so utterly incompatible is 
grace with any particle or power of Free- 
will. — Howbeit, that the advocates for Freewill 

d Meritum condignum."] c Worthy merit/ i. e. ' merit worthy 
of the reward which is proposed to be given to it 5 ' ' merit of 
worth to the uttermost. '. — See above, Sect. xvi. 



444 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part v. deny Christ, is proved not only by this Scrip- 
' ' tore but by their own life. Hence it is, that 

they make Christ to be no longer a sweet 
Mediator, but a tremendous Judge; whom they 
are endeavouring to appease by the intercessions 
of his Virgin Mother, and of the Saints ; more- 
over by many works, rites, superstitions, vows of 
their own invention : the object of all which is to 
make Christ favourable to them, that he may give 
them his grace. On the other hand, they do not 
believe that he intercedes with God, and obtains 
grace for them through his blood; and grace, as 
it is here said, for grace. And as they believe, 
so it is done unto them. They have Christ truly 
and deservedly for their inexorable Judge; 
whilst they forsake him in his office of most pow- 
erful Mediator and Saviour, and account his blood 
and grace a more worthless thing than the pains 
and endeavours of Freewill, 
saxxvi. L e t us a ] so ] iear an example of Freewill. Nico- 
~ demus, I warrant you, is a man in whom nothing 

mus°s case. was wanting which Freewill can effect: what is 
it of pains or endeavour, which this man omits ? 
He confesses Christ to be a true witness, 
and to have come from God; he makes mention 
of his miracles, he comes by night to hear and to 
compare the rest. Does not this man seem to 
have sought the things which belong to piety and 
salvation, by the power of Freewill? But see 
how he founders ! When he hears the true way 
of salvation by new birth pointed out to him by 
Christ, does he recognise that way, or confess 
that he has ever sought it? Nay, he so revolts 
from it, and is confounded, that he not only says 
he does not understand it, but even turns away 
from it, as impossible. — How can these things 
be, says he? And no wonder indeed: for who 
ever heard that a man must be born again of 
water and of the Spirit, if he would be saved ? 
Who ever thought that the Son of God must 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 445 

be lifted up, to the end that all that believe in him sect. 
might not perish, but have eternal life. Have the XXVL 
acutest and best of philosophers ever made 
mention of this ? Have the princes of this world 
ever learned this science ? Has any man's Free- 
will ever made an attempt at it? Does not Paul 
confess it to be wisdom hidden in a mystery ? 
foretold, it is true, by the Prophets, but revealed 
by the Gospel; so as to have been from eternity 
kept secret and unknown to the world. 6 

What shall I say ? Shall we consult experience ? 
Even the whole world, even human reason, even 
Freewill herself is compelled to acknowledge, that 
she neither knew nor heard of Christ, before the 
Gospel came into the world. Now, if she did not 
know, much less hath she sought, or been able to 
seek, or to endeavour after him. But Christ is 
the way, the truth, the life and the salvation. She 
confesses therefore, whether she would or no, 
that by her own powers she has neither known, 
nor been able to seek those things, which are 
belonging to the way, the truth and the salvation. 
Still however, in opposition to this very confession 
and our own experience, we play the madman; 
and maintain, by a mere war of words, that we 
have a certain power remaining in us, which both 
knows and can apply itself to the things that ap- 
pertain to salvation: which is as good as saying, 
knows and can apply itself to Christ the Son of God, 



e It is most true, that the Gospel mystery is strictly matter 
of revelation, and not within the discovery of natural reason. 
But it is also true, that it has been the will of God there should 
be intimations, of this mystery, hereafter to be revealed, and 
traces of such, intimations amidst all nations, from the begin- 
ning. The kingdom of God was announced immediately after 
the fall, in the denunciation upon the serpent ; and it has been 
part of the counsel and work of God, that it should be spoken 
of, and looked for, and that the eternal separation between the 
two parts of the human race into hell and into heaven, should be 
made on the ground of it. — Still, it is not that Freewill has 
found this out— but God has shewn it. 



446 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART V. 



SECT. 
XXVII. 



John xiv. 
forestalled. 
Way, 
truth, &c. 
are ex- 
clusive. 



who was lifted up for us ; f whereas no one has 
ever known, or could have thought of such a 
person. Still, this ignorance is not ignorance, but 
knowledge of Christ ; that is, of the things which 
appertain to salvation ! Do you not even yet see, 
and almost feel with your hands, that the assertors 
of Freewill are downright mad ; when they call 
that knowledge, which they confess themselves to 
be ignorance. Is not this to call darkness light ? 
(Isaiah v.) So mightily doth God shut the mouth 
of Freewill, according to her own confession and 
experience ; but, with all this, she will not hold 
her tongue, and give glory to God. s 

Again, when Christ is called the way, the truth 
and the life; and that, by way of comparison — so 
that whatever is not Christ, is neither way, but 
out of the way; nor truth, but a lie j nor life, but 
death — -Freewill, being neither Christ, nor in 
Christ, must have its dwelling place in error, 
falsehood and death. Where then is to be found, 
and whence is to be proved, that middle and neu- 
tral substance — this substance of Freewill for- 
sooth—which not being Christ (that is, the way, 
the truth and the life), still does not neces- 
sarily become error, falsehood and death? For, if 
what is said about Christ and his grace were not 
all said by way of comparison, in opposition to 
their contraries; as for example, that out of Christ 
there is none but the devil ; out of grace, there is 
nothing but wrath ; out of light, there is nothin 



but darkness : out of the 



way 



ther 



e is 



nothing 



but error ; out of the truth, there is nothing but 

f Pro nobis exaltatum.~\ Exalt, is a word of doubtful meaning-, 
which might refer to his seat at the Father's right hand ; but I 
understand it with allusion to the Lord's words,, "And I if I 
be lifted up " (vyjs&Gw, John xii. 32.), as explained by the 
comment, <e this he said, signifying what death he should die." 

s Nee sic tamen tacere."] A sort of ogvfiivpov, like c stremna 
inertia,' ' concordia discors j' but there is no real inconsist- 
ency -. Freewill should be silent for herself, and give glory to 
God. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 447 

falsehood; out of life, there is nothing but death :* SECT. 
what would all the discourses of the Apostles, xxx IL 
and all Scripture amount to? all surely would be 
said in vain, since it would not force the conclu- 
sion that Christ is necessary to us (which however 
is their great object); inasmuch as some middle 
substance might be discovered, which of itself 
is neither evil nor good, belongs neither to Christ 
nor to Satan, is neither true nor false, neither 
alive nor dead — yea, perhaps, is neither any thing 
nor nothing — yet shall be called the noblest and 
most excellent endowment of all that is found 
in the whole human race. 

Choose which you will, therefore: if you grant 
that the Scriptures speak by way of comparison, 
you can ascribe nothing to Freewill which is not 
contrary to what is in Christ ; you must say of it, 
that error, death, Satan, and all evil reigns in it. 
Ifyou do not grant that they speak by way of 
comparison, you in that case enervate the Scrip- 
tures to such a degree, that they effect nothing, 
and do not prove Christ to be necessary. And 
thus, in establishing Freewill, you make Christ 
void, and tread all Scripture under foot. Again ; 
whilst you pretend in words to be confessing 
Christ, you really and with your heart deny him : 
for, if Freewill is not all error and damnation, but 
sees and wills things honest and good, and things 
which pertain to salvation, she is whole, and has 
no need of Christ for her doctor ; nor hath Christ 
redeemed that part of our nature : for what need is 
there of light and life, where there is light and life? 
Now, if this be not redeemed by Christ, the best 
ingredient in the composition of man is not 
redeemed ; but is of itself good and sound. In 
this case, God, also, is unjust in condemning any 
man, because he condemns that which is best in 

b The word extra is used throughout the whole of this pas- 
sage, to denote distinctness : there are but two sorts of sub* 
stances j to be without the one, is to be within the other. 



448 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

partv. man, and which is sound; in other words, he 
condemns the innocent. For there is no man who 
has not Freewill : and, though a bad man abuses 
his Freewill, still we are taught that the power itself 
is not extinguished in him, so as neither to strive, 
nor be able to strive, for good. Now if it be such, 
without doubt it is holy, just and good, and there- 
fore ought not to be condemned, but to be sepa- 
rated from the man that is to be condemned. But 
this cannot be ; and if it could be, in that case the 
man, no longer having Freewill, would no longer 
be a man, and would neither merit evil nor good, 
neither be damned nor saved, but must be an 
absolute brute, and no longer an immortal being. 
It remains therefore, that God is unjust who con- 
demns that holy, just and good power, which has 
no need of Christ, in and with a bad man. 1 
sect. But let us g;o on with John. "He who believeth 

J ' on him, says he, is not judged. He who believeth 

johniii. n0 ^ na * n been judged already, 1 ' because he be- 
18. 36. lieveth not in the name of the only begotten Son 
of God." 

1 Luther's argument is, Scripture speaks by way of com- 
parison (See above, Sect, xviii. note j ) ; therefore Freewill, 
which confessedly is out of Christ, must be sin, death, Satan, 
error, &c. &c. If you deny that Scripture speaks by compa- 
rison, 1. You make Scripture void. 2. You deny Christ. 
3. You make God unjust. — His reasoning is subtile, but con- 
clusive. — See the same sort of argument pursued, and re- 
marked upon, Part iv. Sect. xliv. note s . 

k Jam judicatus est."] Already as opposed to the judgment 
day : he need not wait for that ; the preaching of Christ tries 
him, of what sort he is, whether he be a doer of evil, or a 
doer of the truth — as appears from vv. 20, 21. The secret is, 
a regenerated soul, when Christ is preached, knows, owns and 
receives him : he who rejects Christ, thereby proves that he is 
not regenerated, but is in his nature state ; devilish, and pos- 
sessed by the devil. — It is supposed, that the state here described 
is the abiding, unchanged, yea dying state of the man. Every 
deliberate rejection of Christ, when preached, gives ground of 
awful apprehension ; but it is final rejection, which stamps this 
judgment. Such being his mind towards Christ, he needs not 
the process of the last judgment to declare whether he be " in 
God/' or not, 



FUEEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 449 

Tell me, whether Freewill is in the number of sect.- 
the believers, or no ? If she be, again she has no xxvm - 
need of grace, seeing she believes in Christ of " 
herself, which Christ, however, she of herself nei- 
ther knows, nor has any conception of. If she 
be not, she has been judged already : and what is 
this, but that she hath been condemned before 
God ? Now God condemns nothing but what is 
wicked. She is wicked therefore : and what pious 
act can an impious thing attempt ? Nor can Free- 
will, I suppose, be excepted here ; since he speaks 
of the whole man, which he says is condemned. 
Besides, unbelief is not a gross affection, but that 
highest sort of affection which sitteth and reign eth 
in the citadel of the will and understanding; just 
as its contrary, faith, does. Now to be unbe- 
lieving, is to deny God and make him a liar. 
(1 Johni. 10.) If we believe not, we make God a 
liar. 1 Now, how can that power which is contrary 
to God, and which makes him a liar, strive after 
good? If this power were not unbelieving and 
ungodly, he ought not to have said of the whole 
man, " he hath been judged already," but to have 
spoken thus : 'the man hath been judged already 
with respect to his gross affections ; but with 
respect to his best and most excellent one, he is 
not judged, because it strives after faith, or rather 
is even now believing/ 

Thus, as often as the Scripture says, cc Every 
man is a liar," we shall say upon the authority of 
Freewill, ' On the contrary, the Scripture rather 
lies, because man is not a liar in his best part, 
that is, in his understanding and will, but only in 
his flesh, blood and marrow; so that all from 
whence man has his name — that is, understanding 
and will — is sound and holy/ So, in that saying 

1 Luther refers only to 1 John i. But the testimony is 
equally strong 1 John v. 10. ", He that believeth not God hath 
made him a liar ; because he believeth not the record that God 
gave of his Son." 

2 G 



450 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

partv. of the Baptist's, « He that believeth on the Son, 
' ' hath everlasting life : but he that believeth not 

the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God 
abideth on him ;" by K upon him ' we must under- 
stand, ' upon his gross affections the wrath of God 
remaineth ;' but upon that eminent power of Free- 
will — upon his understanding and will forsooth — 
grace and eternal life abideth. It appears from 
this example, that, in order to maintain Freewill, 
you, by a synecdoche," 1 turn and twist what is said in 
the Scriptures against ungodly men so as to con- 
fine it to the brutish part of man ; hereby keeping 
the rational and truly human part of him safe and 
sound. In this case, I will render my thanks to 
the assertors of Freewill ; since I shall not feel the 
least concern for my sin, being confident that my 
understanding and will, that is, my Freewill, 
cannot be condemned, inasmuch as it is never 
extinguished, but always remains sound, just and 
holy. But if my understanding and will are to be 
happy, I shall rejoice that my filthy and brutish 
flesh is separated and condemned 5 so far am I 
from wishing that Christ should be its redeemer. 
You see whither the dogma of Freewill carries us, 
even to the denying of all divine and human, tem- 
poral and eternal realities, and to the deluding of 
itself with so many monstrous fictions ! 
Johniii. So again, the Baptist says, "a man cannot 

27, receive any thing except it shall have been given 

him from heaven." 

Cease, Diatribe, to display your great fluency 
here, by enumerating all the things which we 
receive from heaven ! We are not arguing about 
nature, but about grace; we are not inquiring 
what sort of persons we are upon earth, but what 
in heaven and before God. We know that man 
is constituted lord of the things beneath him ; 

1X1 Per synecdochen."\ Syn. ' A figure by which part is taken 
for the whole, or the whole for part .-' here, Diatribe makes it 
the whole of man put for his grosser part. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 451 

over which he has power and Freewill, that they sect. 
may obey him, and may do what he wills and 
thinks. But this is our question, whether he has 
Freewill towards God, so that God obeys and 
does what man wills ; or, whether God, rather, has 
Freewill over man, so that he wills and does what 
God willsfcand can do nothing but what God shall 
have willed and done. Here the Baptist says, 
that he can receive nothing, except it be given him 
from heaven : so that Freewill is nothing. 11 

So again, " He that is of the earth is earthly, John m. 
and speaketh of the earth ; he that cotneth from 31 * 
heaven is above all." 

Here again he makes all earthly (and says that 
they mind and speak earthly things) who are not 
of Christ, and leaves none between the two. But 
Freewill, surely, is not he that cometh from heaven. 
So that it must be of the earth, and must mind 
and speak the things of the earth. Now, if there 

n Hie dicit.'} That is, according to Luther (who assumes 
that the things here spoken of are things of God, not of the 
creature), determines this question ; it is God's will, not man's, 
that is done. — I have already objected many times to the dis- 
tinction which Luther here again resorts to (see above, Part iv. 
Sect. xlvi. note x ) ; nor can I allow this text to be a direct tes- 
timony against Freewill. — John is accounting for the superior 
honour paid to Jesus above himself: he had just been informed 
concerning Jesus, " All men come to Him." The principle of 
the remark therefore is, I can have no more of honour than it 
is the will of God to bestow upon me. And he goes on to say, 
that he never claimed to be Christ, and consequently never 
claimed to receive the honour which it had been the Father's 
good pleasure to appropriate to Him. It is honour and dis- 
tinction therefore, not spiritual power and capacity, of which. 
John here speaks. — But it is honour in and of the kingdom of 
God 5 which is preceded by a gift of super-creation power 
exciting and leading to it. As the honour, so the precedent 
power is of God, and according to the measure in which he 
has ordained to bestow, and does produce it. — However, non 
tali auxilio. If Luther understands it, ' we must have power 
given to enable us to receive power,' it is a testimony : but 
its meaning is far simpler than this. What we have, we 
have received : if another has more, it is because God has 
given it. 

2 g 2 



452 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part v. were any power in any man, which at any time, 

' in any place, in any work, did not mind earthly 

things, the Baptist ought to have excepted this 
man, and not to have said generally concerning 
all out of Christ, that they are earthly, and speak 
of the earth. 
Johnviii. So, afterwards in chap. viii. Christ ^lso says, 
23. cc ye are of the world ; I am not of the world : 

ye are from beneath, I am from above." 

The persons to whom he spake had Freewill, 
to wit, understanding and will ; and yet he says 
Ci they were of the world." Now what news 
would it be, if he should say they were of the 
world, with respect to their flesh and gross affec- 
tions? Did not the whole world know this before? 
Besides, what need is there to say that men are 
of the world in that part in which they are 

° This is a testimony borne to Jesus by John, in contrast 
with himself : though filled with the Holy Ghost even from his 
mother's womb, and having the hand of the Lord with him 
(Luke i. 15. 66.), he had not been born 'by the Holy Ghost's 
coming upon a virgin mother, and the power of the Highest's 
overshadowing her ;' ' he had not come down from heaven ;' 
he had not * come from above,' ' come from heaven,' (and, as 
compared with Him, was earthly in his words (see Luke i. 35. 
John iii. 13. 31. vi. 38. 41, 42.*), as well as in his frame and 
formation.) Luther misunderstands the text — does not see its 
glory, and does not elicit its testimony against Freewill cor- 
rectly. It Sis however a testimony : if John only so far as he 
had a gift from heaven was other than earthly, and had com- 
paratively so little of this gift as fitly to call himself earthly — 
what is 'Freewill,' 'nature man,' 'that which is nothing but 
earth,' instead of being such an one as John by the grace of 
God had been made. It is not ' Christ's people,' and ' the 
world,' which are opposed to each other here by the names 
'earthly ' and 'heavenly •' but Christ and John singly: John 
was a man in nowise different from other men as to his natural 
frame, he was truly and solely a son of Adam : but Christ's 
human person, as to its spiritual part, was from heaven. 

* I do not refer to 1 Cor. xv. 47. because I consider it as belonging to 
another subject — Christ the risen head of his risen people, come down the 
second time from heaven to raise his dead ones : — it is of Christ as walking 
upon this earth that the Baptist here testifies, he comet h or (what is the same 
in import here) hath come from heaven ; and so in the other passages to 
which I have referred. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 453 

brutish ; when, at this rate, the beasts also are sect. 
of the world ? p XXIX ' 



Again, what does that saying of Christ's in j h nv j. 
John vi. " No one cometh unto me, except my 44. 
Father shall have drawn him'/ 5 leave to Freewill? q 
He says, it is necessary that a man hear and learn 
from the Father himself; and afterwards, that all 
must be taught of God. (vv. 44, 45.) Here for- 
sooth he teaches that not only the works and pains 
of Freewill are vain, but that even the word of 
the Gospel (of which he is here treating) is heard 
in vain, except the Father himself speak, teach, 
and draw within. No man can come, says he : 
that power forsooth, by which a man is enabled to 
make any endeavour after Christ; that is, after 
those things which are appertinent to salvation ; 
is asserted to be nothing. Nor is that saying of 
Augustine's which Diatribe adduces for the pur- 
pose of blurring this most clear and most mighty 
passage — that God draweth just as we draw a 
sheep by shewing it a bough — of any service to 
Freewill. She will have it, that this simile proves 
there is a power in us to follow the drawing of 
God. But this simile is of no avail here : foras- 
much as God shews us not one good thing only, 
but all his good things, and even Christ himself — 

p Surely the Lord means more by ' from beneath' here, than 
the Baptist did ; who spake of himself — or, according to 
Luther, e of himself and all that are Christ's.' The Lord 
speaks of these Jews as the devil's seed, whose throne and 
habitation are beneath the earth : whilst his own origin, as well 
as throne, was and is heaven. (See that whole discourse 
John viii. especially from v. 21 to the end of the chapter.) — 
Luther's conclusion however is correct. He bore this testi- 
mony to their best and finer part, not to the grosser. An 
objection may indeed be taken ' These were expressly and 
emphatically children of the wicked one -, and therefore their 
case is somewhat different from that of the children of the 
kingdom. The answer is, not as it respects nature — Freewill 
and all nature powers. 

° Venit ad me.~\ The original text is stronger ; " is able to 
come unto me." 



454 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part v. his Son ; but still no man follows him, unless the 
— — Father shew him something else within, and in 
other ways draw him : nay, the whole world per- 
secutes that Son, whom he shews. This com- 
parison of Augustine's squares perfectly enough 
with the case of the godly * who are now sheep, 
and know their shepherd God. These, who live 
by the Spirit and are moved by the Spirit, follow 
whithersoever God willeth, and whatsoever he 
shall have shewn them. But the ungodly cometh 
not, even when he hath heard the word, except the 
Father draw and teach within; which he does by 
bestowing the Spirit. In them is another drawing, 
distinct from that which is without; in them 
Christ is shewn by the illumination of the Spirit, 
through which the man is married off to Christ by 
a most delightful ravishment, and rather endures 
the act of a speaking teacher and a drawing God, 
than performs one himself by seeking and running/ 

r Illuminaiionem SpiriMs.'] Not ' the enlightening of the 
man's own soul,' but < the throwing of light upon Christ :' the 
blessed Spirit casts his bright beams upon the face, or person, 
of the Lord Jesus Christ; and so wins to him. — A most beautiful 
and accurate description this, of that Holy Ghost violence, with 
which the soul is converted. One can hardly help saying to 
Luther, si sic omnia! A single testimony, like this broad and 
irresistible one, opened as he opens it, is worth a hundred 
abstruse and obscure ones 3 of which it is a question in the 
first place, whether they bear at all upon the subject — secondly, 
how they exactly bear upon it — and thirdly, with what degree 
of effect. — I am not meaning to disparage Luther's testi- 
monies — which, with a few exceptions, are clear, and strong to 
the point ; but I think the question might be safely rested upon 
this single text — considered in its connection — and that, on such 
a subject, to bring those which will admit of a doubt, or of a 
possible misconstruction-^ — in short to use any other implement 
than a sledge-hammer — is unwise. Even Luther might have 
made his proofs clearer and stronger - f and they would have 
lost nothing by being fewer. The impression is weakened by 
being extended 5 and many small blows, of which one or two 
beat the air, render the victory doubtful, in the sight of the 
by-standers. (See above, Part iv. Sect. xlii. note i .) — But 
what have we here ? It is not only that the words are so 
express it is impossible to evade them,, and that to cite them 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 455 

I will brine: yet one more text from this same sect. 
John, who in his sixteenth chapter says, " The spirit 



shall reprove the world of sin, because they have 
not believed in me/' (John xvi. 9.) Here you Johnxvi.9. 
see it is sin not to believe in Christ. But this sin, 
surely, is not fixed in the skin or in the hair, but 
in the very understanding and will. Now, when 
he charges the whole world with this sin, and it 
is ascertained by experience that this sin of theirs 
is as unknown to the world as Christ himself — 
seeing it is that which is revealed by the reprov- 
ing of the Spirit — it is plain that Freewill, together 
with its will and understanding, is considered as 
captured, and condemned for this sin, before God. 
So then, whilst Freewill is ignorant of Christ and 
does not believe in him, she cannot will or endea- 
vour after any good thing, but is necessarily the 
slave of this unknown sin. In short, since the 
Scriptures preach Christ in a way of comparison 
and opposition every where, as I have said; 
representing every thing which hath not the 
Spirit of Christ as the subject of Satan, ungod- 
liness, error, darkness, sin and the wrath of God; 
how many soever testimonies there be which 
speak of Christ, these will, all and every of them, 
fight against Freewill. Now such testimonies are 
innumerable ; nay, they make up the whole of 

is even more impressive than to enlarge upon them,, but they 
must mean what they say — ' There is no power whatsoever in 
the natural man to come to Christ ' — because otherwise they 
have no meaning at all, in this context. — The Lord is account- 
ing for their murmurs, in which they muttered out a rejection 
of him. f You reject me! What wonder? It cannot be 
otherwise, seeing ye are not drawn to me of God.' — And when he 
repeats the same sentiment at the 65th verse, it is to account 
for the same fact, and is followed by a consequence which 
would naturally result from such a declaration ; but which no 
other sentiment would account for. " From that time many 
of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. Then fc 
said Jesus unto the twelve, l ' Will ye also go away ?" The 
testimony therefore is so unequivocal, as well as so decisive,, 
that Freewill has not even a heel to lift up against it. 



456 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part v. Scripture. So that if we try this cause at the 
' judgment seat of Scripture, I shall conquer every- 
way ; s there not being a single jot or tittle remain- 
ing, but what condemns the dogma of Freewill. 

Now although our great theologians and main- 
tamers of Freewill either know not, or pretend not 
to know, that the Scripture thus preaches Christ 
in the way of comparison and opposition, still all 
Christians know this, and publicly confess it. 
They know I say, that there are two kingdoms in 
the world, which are most adversative to each 
other ; that Satan reigns in the one, and is on this 
account called by Christ the Prince of this w 7 orld, 
and by Paul the God of this age ; holding all men 
captive at his will, who have not been torn from 
him by the Spirit of Christ, as the same Paul 
witnesseth ; and not sivffering them to be torn 
from him by any force, save by the Spirit of God; 
as Christ testifies in his parable of the strong man 
keeping his palace in peace. In the other reigneth 
Christ: whose kingdom is continually resisting 
and fighting with that of Satan. Into this kingdom 
we are translated, not by our own power, but by 
the grace of God; by which we are delivered from 
this present wicked age, and snatched out of the 
hands of the power of darkness. The knowledge 
and confession of these kingdoms, as fighting per- 
petually against each other with such might and 
resolution, would be of itself sufficient to confute 
the dogma of Freewill : seeing that we are com- 
pelled to serve in the kingdom of Satan, unless we 
be rescued from it by a divine power. These 

5 Omnibus modis vicero.'] Omn. mod. like iravil Tpo-rrw, or 
Karairavra rpoTrov, of the Greeks, expresses the manner in which 
any act is] done, or event accomplished : ' By what arts and 
means soever, or with what spirit and turn of mind soever, the 
contest be carried on, I shall have conquered so as not to leave 
a single jot or tittle for Freewill.' — The argument is, Scrip- 
ture preaches Christ by antithesis ; therefore, whatsoever 
preaches Christ excludes Freewill. But Christ is preached 
every where : therefore Freewill is opposed every where. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 457 

things, I say, the vulgar know, and by their sect. 
proverbs, prayers, efforts and whole life, ahund- xxxi. 
antly confess. 1 

I omit that truly Achillean argument of mine, Omits to 
which Diatribe in her noble courage has left g^SS 
untouched; namely, that in Romans vii. and Gala- between 
tians v. Paul teaches us that the conflict between fle . sl ? ar } d _ 
flesh and spirit is so mighty in the sanctified and cause no 
godly, that they cannot do the things which they attempt 
would. I argue thus from it: if the nature of man is teen made 
so wicked, that in those who have been born again to repel 
of the Spirit, not only it does not endeavour after ^satd 
good,but even fights against and opposes good ; how about it. 
should it endeavour after good in those who, being 
not yet regenerated, are serving under Satan, in 
the old man ? For Paul does not speak of the gross 
affections only in that place, through which as a 
sort of common outlet Diatribe is wont to slip like 
an eel out of the hands of every Scripture; but 
reckons heresy, idolatry, dissensions, contentions, 
mischiefs, which reign in those highest powers of 
the soul — the understanding and the will, say — 
amongst the works of the flesh. If then the flesh 
maintains a conflict against the spirit, by means of 

t How strange that this enlightened and enlightening view 
of the two kingdoms should he so little realized., substantiated 
and applied ! this, which needs only to be carried back to the 
period of the fall, and thence continued downwards to the end 
of the world, with an understanding, that this is not the crea- 
tion state of man, and the things of man, but the counsel 
and scheme of God as made way for by the creation and the 
fall — to render all Scripture, history, observation and expe- 
rience, simple and intelligible ! — Luther evidently did not 
comprehend them in the fulness of their origination, design, 
operations and results ; but the substance is here — and we can 
scarcely help breathing out the vain wish that he had, for his 
own comfort, and that of others whom the Lord hath not dis- 
dained to edify by his writings, been enabled to put the 
elements, with which he here furnishes us, together, in their 
beginning and endings, and in the connection of the interme- 
diate parts, in a workmanlike manner. He has the materials ; 
but he neither models, nor lays the foundation, nor buildeth 
thereon. Still, what grace in his day to have seen so much ! 



458 - BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part v. these affections, in the saints ; much more will it 
fight against God in the ungodly, and their Free- 
will. On this account Rom. viii. calls it enmity 
against God. u 

I should be glad, I say, if any body would take 
off this argument for me, and defend Freewill 
from it. 

For my own part, I confess that, if it could any 
how be, I should be unwilling to have Freewill 
given to me, or any thing left in my own hand, 
which might enable me to endeavour after salva- 
tion : not only because in the midst of so many 
dangers and adversities on the one hand, and of 
so many assaulting devils on the other, I should 
not be strong enough to maintain my standing 
and keep my hold of it (for one devil is mightier 
than all men put together, and not a single indi- 
vidual of mankind would be saved) ; but because, 
if there were even no dangers, and no adversities, 
and no devils, still I should be compelled to toil 
for ever as uncertainly, and to fight as one that 
beateth the air. v For, though I should live and 
work to eternity, my own conscience would never 
be sure and secure how much she ought to do, 
that God might be satisfied with her. Do what 
she might, there would still be left an anxious 
doubt, whether it pleased God, or whether he 
required any thing more; as the experience of all 
self-righteous persons x proves, and as I, to my 

u I have already shewn that I do not coincide with Luther in 
his representation of the flesh and the spirit : that I consider 
the flesh and the spirit to be the unrenewed body and the 
renewed mind, severally, of the Lord's called people. But 
this difference does not affect the argument here. If the 
renewed man, who has the Spirit, have this conflict to main- 
tain ; what is the wholly unrenewed man before God, and what 
his endeavour after good ? 

v LaborareJ] The allusion is evidently to 1 Cor. ix. 26. — 
but he does not use the word currere. Paul says rpex^. 

x Justitiariorum.~] I do not find the word, except as bad 
Latin for e a justice V but the connection determines it to mean 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 459 

own great misery, have learned abundantly by so sect. 
many years of conflict. xxxi. 

But now, since God has taken my salvation out 
of the hands of my own will, and has received it 
into those of his own ; and has promised to save 
me, not by my own work or running, but by his 
own grace and mercy ; I am at ease and certain, 
because he is faithful and will not lie to me, and 
because he is moreover great and powerful, so 
that no number of devils, no number of adver- 
sities, can either wear Him out, or pluck me out of 
his hand. No one/ says he, shall pluck them out 
of my hand ; for my Father who gave them me, is 
greater than all. Thus it comes to pass, that, if 
all are not saved, some, however, nay, many are ; 
whereas by the power of Freewill none absolutely 
■would be, but we should all to a man be lost? 
Moreover, we are fearlessly sure that we please 
God, not by the merit of our own work, but by the 
favour of his mercy, which he hath promised us ; 
and that, if we do less than we ought, or ought 
amiss, he does not impute it to us, but with a 
fatherly mind forgives and amends it. Such is 
the boast of every saint in his God. z 

here, e persons who are going about to establish their own 
righteousness,' in opposition to c those who have learned that 
there is a God-righteousness and have been led to submit 
to it.' — c Justicers,' or c righteousness-mongers.' 

y Ovcelr implies more than no man; no person, manor devil. 

z The defects of Luther's theology are apparent in this 
paragraph. He gives quietness, but not triumph ; quietness 
too, we know not why — when a reason might be assigned. We 
are to live, assuredly to live ; we do not yet live : we are to 
work too, that we may live ; and our workings must be for- 
given and amended. — He did not see Christ's peculiar and 
peculiarizing headship : he did not see that the efficacy of 
Christ is his enabling God, by His dying, to raise up the cursed 
from their curse after suffering a part of it ; that they live, even 
now, in a risen Christ as though they had risen with him • and 
that it is eternal life already received and acted — just in such 
measure as He is pleased to bestow of it — which constitutes 
the acceptable service they are now rendering : which service He, 
as he hath appointed, and just in such measure and manner 



460 



BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 



PART V. 

SECT. 
XXXII. 



Difficulty 
stated. 



Exposed. 



But if this disturb us, that, it is difficult to 
maintain the mercy and equity of God, in that he 
damns the undeserving — namely, ungodly men 
who are even of such a sort, that, being born in 
ungodliness, they cannot by any means help being 
ungodly, remaining so, and being damned ; yea, 
being compelled by the necessity of their nature 
to sin and perish (as Paul speaks, " We were all 
the sons of wrath even as others "), being created 
such as they are, by God himself, out of a seed 
which became corrupted through that sin which 
was Adam's only — 

In this state of things, we must honour and 
reverence the exceeding great mercy of God in 
his dealings with those whom he justifies and 
saves although most unworthy of such benefits, 
and must at least make some small concession to 
his divine wisdom, believing him to be just, when 
to us he seems unjust. For, if his justice were 
indeed such as might by human apprehension be 
pronounced just when it is judged, it would clearly 
not be divine justice, but would differ nothing 
from that of man. Now, seeing that God is the 
one true God, and is moreover totally incompre- 
hensible, and inaccessible to human reason ; it is 
natural, nay it is necessary, that his justice also 
be incomprehensible : just as Paul also cries out, 
saying, " O the depth of the riches both of the 
wisdom and knowledge of God, how incomprehen- 
sible are his judgments and his ways unsearch- 
able." (Rom. xi. 33.) 

Now they would not be incomprehensible, if we 
could, throughout the whole of them, conceive why 



as he hath appointed, will reward. — But all this upon the basis 
of Christ's super- creation headship, and their relations to God, 
in Him : the merit of their acceptance having been wrought 
already, to the uttermost, by Him only 5 and they having only 
to enter into and enjoy their portion — a mixed one here., an 
unmixed one hereafter. See Part iii. Sect, xxxviii. note K 
John iii. 36. v. 24. x. 28. xvii. 3. 1 John v. 10. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 461 

they are just. What is man compared with G-ocl ? sect. 
What is our power capable of, as compared with 



his? What is our strength compared with his 
might ? What is our knowledge compared with 
his wisdom ? What is our substance compared 
with his substance? In short, what is every 
thing of ours, as compared with everything of his? a 

Now if, with no other preceptress than nature, Reproved. 
we confess that man's power, strength, wisdom, 
knowledge, substance and every thing of ours is 
absolutely nothing, when compared with God's 
power, God's strength, God's wisdom, knowledge, 
and substance; what is this perverseness of ours, 
that we pull and hale God's justice and judgment 
only, b arrogating so much to our own judgment 
as to try whether we cannot comprehend, judge 
and estimate the judgment of God ? Why do we 
not in like manner say here also ; our judgment is 
nothing, if it be compared with the divine judg- 
ment ? Ask reason herself, whether she be not 
compelled by conviction to acknowledge, that she 
is foolish and rash in not allowing the judgment 
of God to be incomprehensible, when she con- 
fesses all the other properties of God to be incom- 
prehensible? What ! in all other things we con- 
cede a divine majesty to God; it is in his judg- 
ment only, that we are prepared to deny it to him, 
and cannot, even for this little while, give him credit 
for being just, when he has promised us, that, after 
he shall have revealed his glory, it shall come to 
pass, that we all of us do then both see and feel, 
that he has been, and is just. 

I will give an example to confirm this belief, And paiii- 
and to console that evil eye, c which suspects God f^\ e 

a Ad illius omnia.'] I do not venture to render, e as com- 
pared with its like of His ;' but Luther means so, presuming 
that our image-ship extends to every divine, property. 

b Justitiam et judicium.'] Just. The principle of justice -, 
jud. the faculty of judgment. 

c Ad consulandum.] An odd expression in this connection -, 
but he means, to console the spirit which is tempted to see with 



462 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

partv. of injustice. Behold, God so governs this mate- 
J rial world in outward things, that, if you observe 

and follow the judgment of human reason, you 
are compelled to say, either there is no God, or 
there is an unjust God ; as that poet says, " I am 
often solicited to think that there are no Gods." 
For, see how true it is, that the wicked are most 
prosperous, and the good, on the other hand, most 
unfortunate ; even proverbs, and experience, who 
is the mother of proverbs, testifying, that 'the 
wickeder men are, the more fortunate/ iC The 
tabernacles of the wicked abound," says Job; and 
the 73d Psalm complains that sinners abound 
with riches, in this world. d Is it not most unjust 
in the judgment of all men, pray, that the wicked 
should be prospered and the good afflicted? 6 Yet 



evil eye : e an evil eye is one which is either unsound generally, 
or is infected with the particular disease of envy, malice and 
blasphemy.' See Matt. vi. 23. xx. 15. Mark vii. 22. 

d Job xii. 6. Psalm lxxiii. 12. Our version says, " The 
tabernacles of robbers prosper." " Behold, these are the 
ungodly who prosper in the world ; they increase in riches." 

e Luther feels a difficulty in reconciling the condemnation of 
the reprobate with God's justice. In fact he acknowledges 
that he cannot ; begs off, and makes unwarrantable conces- 
sions. This difficulty arises from his imperfect conception of 
the creation and fall of man. If every individual of the human 
race had a distinct personal subsistence given to him, in the 
creation of Adam ; and, consequently, had a distinct personal 
subsistence in him, when he brake his commandment; and, as 
this distinct substance, was one with him who by his alone per- 
sonal agency did break that commandment (the union of these 
many distinct substances in and with his one substance nowise 
contradicting the alone and distinct agency of the one first 
man, Adam) ■ where is the injustice of God's bringing out 
each of these distinct individuals, one after another, into 
manifest existence and distinct personal agency, and — having 
given to them individually, for the most part, the opportunity 
of shewing what they are according to their own making of 
themselves, not according to his making of them — inflict- 
ing upon them the judgment which he had distinctly 
fore-announced, which by their disobedience as one with 
Adam they had wilfully incurred, and which for the most 
part they have by their own subsequent actings in this world 
proved to be their due,, suitable, and self-made portion ? If 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 463 

such is the course of the world. It is here, that sect. 
even the greatest wits have fallen to the depth of 

God has been pleased to make provision for the mitigation, 
removal and reversal of this sentence in some of those who 
have justly incurred it, clearly they who suffer have justly 
incurred it * and therefore God is only just in inflicting it. — 
Through not discerning the mystery of the creation, Luther 
accounted God the creator of these wicked ones, as we have 
several times seen ; and, through not, in consequence, discerning 
their participation in the fall, he accounted God their debtor to 
give them an equivalent for that Freewill, or rather that know- 
ledge of only good, which Adam had possessed, and which he did 
not see how they had forfeited : I say knowledge of only good, 
because Adam had no more of Freewill properly so called, than 
we have, as hath been shewn. With respect to the justice of 
God in this transaction then, there can be no question ; though 
Luther makes one. Justice is the fulfilment of relations; God 
had fulfilled all His, when man incurred his fore-announced 
curse — then what does justice require, but that it be ex- 
acted? Again ; with respect to God's right of instituting 
such relations as He did between himself and the human race 
in Adam, there can be no question. God has a right to form 
any creature that he is pleased and has power to form. To be 
consistent with himself, he will give them due relations, and 
will fulfil his own part in those relations. Now, what was 
wanting in the relations he gave to Adam ? Did He not give 
him reason and knowledge, by which he ought to have resisted 
the temptation ? And if Adam had enough, what could the 
distinct substances which were in him complain, if God put their 
safety upon the issue of his obedience ? What difference 
would there have been, or could they pretend that there would 
have been, in the result, if each of them distinctly and personally 
had undergone the same trial ? — But I do not deem this con- 
sideration at all necessary : it is the union and unity of each 
individual of the human race, still retaining his individuality, 
with Adam, which constitutes his original sin and his original 
guilt 3 and from which the loss of his creation state and of his 
creation character was derived. — The only question that can be 
asked in all this mystery respects the goodness, that is, the loving- 
kindness of God. It is here that Paul puts the difficulty ; here 
that he calls for submission 5 and here that he assigns the 
principle of the procedure. "Is there not unrighteousness r" 
For it will come to this, no man hath done otherwise than 
God designed. The answer is, God has exercised his right of 
the potter, and has exercised it for a great and wise reason. — 
" What if etc. ?'" — The man whose eyes the Lord hath opened 
will see, and will search into, these things, and will justify God 
at his heart. Nor will Paul, with his Isaiah, condemn him. He 
is using what God hath done and hath revealed unto the very 



464 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

part v. denying that there is a God, and of feigning that 
Fortune turns and twists everything, as the whim 
takes her : such were the Epicureans and Pliny. 
Following close upon these, Aristotle, to deliver 
that first Being of his from misery, is of opinion, 
that he does not see any of the things that exist, 
but himself; because he considers that it would 
be most painful to him to see so much of evil, so 
much of injustice/ 

The Prophets, on the other hand, who believed 
that there is a God, are more tempted with the 
suggestion of God's injustice : as Jeremiah, Job, 
David, Asaph and others. What do you imagine 
Demosthenes and Cicero to have thought, when, 
after having done all they could, they received 
such wages as they did, in a wretched death? 5 
Yet this injustice of God, which is exceedingly 
probable, and inferred by such arguments as no 
power of reason or light of nature can resist, is 
most easily removed by the light of the Gospel 
and the knowledge of grace; which teaches us, 
that the wicked flourish, it is true, in their body, 

end for which He hath done and hath revealed it. See Part iii. 
Sect, xxxviii. note l . Part iv. Sect. x. note z . Sect. xi. note h , 
and Sect, xxxiv. note d . 

f Luther s mention makes it doubtful to which of the two 
Plinies he refers ; whether to the great naturalist or his 
nephew : neither of them, however, saw in the works of nature 
any thing more than matter : both were amiable, as natural 
men, and the former was a monument of philosophy and 
industry, called by some the martyr of nature, but more fitly 
called the martyr of curiosity and self-will. The latter was a 
wellbred, lettered persecutor of Christians ; but too proud to 
inquire into their doctrines, and not afraid, though reluctant, 
to shed their blood. For some excellent remarks upon his 
character, see Miln. Eccl. Hist. vol. i. pp. 166 — 172. — For a 
hint at the Epicureans, who were like their master — ' Epicuri 
de grege porcus ' — See above, Part i. Sect. v. note 9. — For a 
confirmation of what is here said about Aristotle, see above, 
Part iv. Sect. viii. note r . 

s Demosthenes, abandoned in fact by his countrymen, after 
having fled to the temple of Neptune in Calauria, sucked his 
poisoned quill : Cicero was delivered up to his philippicized 
Antony. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 465 

but they perish in their souls : so that we have sect. 
the brief solution of all this insolvable question in a 
single short sentence, c There is a life after this life, 
in which whatsoever hath not been punished and 
rewarded here shall hereafter be punished and 
rewarded; seeing that this life is nothing but the 
precurse, or rather beginning, of the life to come. 5 
If the light of the Gospel then, which owes all its 
power to the word and faith, be so efficacious, 
that this question, handled as it had been in all 
ages but never answered, is so thoroughly made 
an end of and laid to sleep ; what will happen, 
think you, when the light of the word and of faith 
shall have ceased, and when the reality, even the 
divine Majesty itself, shall be revealed as it is ? 
Do you not think, that the light of glory will then 
be able to solve, with the greatest ease, that ques- 
tion which in the light of the word, or of grace^ is 
insolvable ; seeing that the light of grace hath so 
readily solved a question, which could not be 
solved by the light of nature ? Let it be conceded, 
that there are three great lights — the light of 
nature, the light of grace, and the light of glory- 
according to the common distinction, which is a 
good one. In the light of nature, it is a fact not 
to be explained, that it is just the good man be 
afflicted, and the bad man prosper. But the light 
of grace resolves this question. In the light of 
grace it is inexplicable, how God condemns the 
man, who cannot, by any power of his own, do 
otherwise than sin, and be guilty. In this case, the 
light of nature, as well as the light of grace, 
declares that the fault is not in wretched man but 
in unjust God. For how can they judge other- 
wise of God? seeing he crowns a wicked man 
gratuitously without any merits, and does not 
crown another but condemns him — who perhaps 
is less, or at the worst not more wicked. — But 
the light of glory proclaims something else, and, 
when it arrives, will shew God, whose judgment 

2 h 



466 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

pap.t v. is for the present that of incomprehensible justice, 

~ to be only that of most just and most manifest 

justice ; teaching us, in the mean time, to believe, 
the certainty of this event, admonished and con- 
firmed, as we are, in and unto the expectation of it, 
by the example of the light of grace, which accom- 
plishes a like prodigy with respect to the light of 
nature. 11 
sect. Here I shall put an end to this treatise : pre- 
xxxiv. pared, if need be, to plead the cause yet further; 
although I consider, that I have in this said 
argument abundantly enough to satisfy the pious mind, 
which is willing to yield to the force of truth 
without pertinacity. For, if we believe it to be 
true, that God foreknows and predestinates every 
thing ; moreover, that he can neither be mis- 
taken, nor hindered, in his foreknowledge and pre- 
destination ; and, once more, that nothing is done 
. without his will (a truth which reason herself is com- 
pelled to yield) ) it follows, from the testimony of 
the selfsame reason, that there can be no such 
thing as Freewill in man or angel, or any crea- 
ture. So again; if we believe Satan to be the 

h If the observations of the preceding note be correct, we do 
not want Luther's illustration, with its distinctions. We need 
not wait for the decision and discoveries of the great day, to 
see God just. Nor are his assumptions admissible. God has 
never left the eternity of man and the future judgment without 
witness. If these things have been obscured, it is not by God's 
having put them into the dark, but because men have wilfully 
shut their eyes to them. The new creation kingdom was 
announced at the fall — and has been variously preached ever 
since, to the whole earth. The kingdom of grace does not 
leave God under the suspicion of injustice ; man has made 
himself that damned thing which he is. The elect are not 
crowned sinners. The union of the elect with Christ, and the 
lack of this union, with its consequent self-left state, in the repro- 
bate, explains both dooms, in perfect consistency with divine 
equity. The illustration, therefore, is both unneeded and untrue : 
unneeded,inasmuch as th e spiritual man even now sees the inflexi- 
ble justice of God to be without spot — what it assuredly is ; and 
untrue, inasmuch as Luther's insolvable questions are resolved 
under those lights which he declares to be severally inadequate. 



FREEWILL PROVED TO BE A LIE. 467 

Prince of this world, who is perpetually plotting sect. 
and lighting against the kingdom of Christ, with x ^ 
all his might, so that he doth not let his captives 
of human kind go, unless he be driven out by a 
divine power ; again it is manifest, that there can 
be no such thing as Freewill. 

So again, if we believe original sin 1 to have 
so ruined us, as to make most troublesome work 
even for those who are led by the Spirit, through 
striving, as it does, against good in them ; it is 
clear, that nothing is left in man as devoid of the 
Spirit, which can turn itself to good, but only 
what turns itself to evil. Again • if the Jews, 
who followed after righteousness with all their 
might, have fallen headlong the rather into un- 
righteousnes : and the Gentiles, who were follow- 
ing after unrighteousness, have freely and un- 
hopedly attained to righteousness ; it is manifest, 
as in the former instances, by very deed and 
experience, that man without grace can will 
nothing but evil. In fine ; if we believe Christ to 
have redeemed man by his blood, we are obliged 
to confess that the whole man was undone ; else 
we shall make Christ either superfluous, or the 
redeemer of the vilest part in man : which is blas- 
phemous and sacrilegious. 1 " 

' A still inferior view to what he has given us before of 
original sin, but a very common one : he here takes it for 
that vitiation of nature., which is the consequence of it — instead 
of that first sin, which gave origin to the vitiation. — But the 
argument against Freewill is not affected ; the consequent 
vitiation is in nowise less than he represents it to be. 

k He briefly recites certain additional considerations, which 
must, each of them, be conclusive upon this subject. 1. God's 
foreknowledge and predestination. 2. Satan's lordship over 
the world. 3. Original sin. 4. The case of the apostate 
and rejected Jews, as contrasted with the conversion of the 
Gentiles. 5. Christ the Redeemer unnecessary, or his benefit 
vilified. 



468 BONDAGE OF THE WILL, 



CONCLUSION 



Luther admonishes, thanks^ counsels, prays. 

Now therefore I beseech thee in the name of 
Christ, my Erasmus, that thou wouldest at length 
perform what thou hast promised : thou pro- 
misedest that thou wouldest be willing to submit 
thyself to the man who should teach thee better 
things. Have done with respect of persons. I 
confess, thou art a great man, adorned with many 
of the noblest gifts by God; not to mention 
others, with genius, and learning, and eloquence, 
even to a miracle. On the other hand, I have 
nothing, and am nothing ; save that I could 
almost glory in being a Christian. Again ; I 
greatly commend and extol you for this thing 
also, that you are the only man of all my antago- 
nists that hath attacked the heart of the subject, 
the head of the cause ; instead of wearing me out 
with those extraneous points, the Papacy, Pur- 
gatory, Indulgences, and a number of like topics, 
Which may more fitly be called trifles, than matters 
of debate : a sort of chase, in which nearly all my 
opponents have been hunting me hitherto in vain. 
You are that single and solitary individual, who 
hath seen the hinge of the matters in dispute, and 
hath aimed at the neck : I thank you for this 
from my heart — it is far more to my taste to be 
occupied in debating this question, so far as time 
and leisure are accorded me. If those who have 
heretofore attacked me had done the same ; if 



CONCLUSION. 469 

those who are just at this time making their boast 
of new spirits, and new revelations, would do so; 
we should have less of sedition and divisions, as 
well as more of peace and concord. But God 
thus stirs up Satan to punish our ingratitudes 

Howbeit, unless you can plead this cause in a 
style somewhat different from your Diatribe, I 
could earnestly wish that you would be content 
with your own proper good, and would cultivate, 
adorn and advance the cause of literature and the 
languages, as you have heretofore done, with 
great profit and praise. By this pursuit of yours 
you have even served me not a little ; insomuch 
that I confess myself greatly your debtor, even as 
I most assuredly venerate you, and sincerely look 
up to you as my superior, in that particular. 
God hath not yet willed, nor given to you, that 
you should be equal to this cause ! Pray do not 
think that I say this with any arrogancy. 

And yet I do implore the Lord to make you as 
much my superior in this particular speedily, as 
you already are in all others. Nor is it any thing 
new, that God should instruct a Moses by Jethro, 
or a Paul by Ananias. As to what you say, that 
you have failed, miserably indeed, of your aim, if 
you do not know Christ; I think, you must be 

a Ita per Satanam.'] Very true as to instrumentality. But 
whence then comes this ingratitude ? Could not God cure it ? 
Could not he drive out the Canaanite altogether from the 
land ? Regenerate man, and a revived church, is still Adam ; 
| and it is the glory of God to save and glorify an Adam. He 
must be shewn therefore, or rather must shew himself what he 
is. His Canaan is not yet the Lord's world — neither is he yet 
the risen God-man. The time of ingratitude is yet ; and is 
yet, because the Lord's real and designed glory requires that it 
should be so.— There is something satisfying, and cheering, and 
enlightening, in this view of the Lord's present dealings with 
his church and people, which reconciles us to what must other- 
wise be a constant burden and distress — and which leaves no 
more questions to be asked. Luther had not distinct percep- 
tions of the origin, and nature, and design of evil ; and whilst 
he talked much of Satan, did not understand him well enough 
to put him in his place. 



470 BONDAGE OF THE WILL. 

aware yourself what sort of a saying this is. All 
will not therefore be in the wrong, because you or 
I, if it be so, are in the wrong. God is declared 
to be a God that is wonderful in his saints; so 
that we may count those for saints, who are the 
farthest off from saintship. Nor is it hard to sup- 
pose, that you, being a man, may neither rightly 
understand, nor with sufficient diligence observe, 
either the Scriptures or the sayings of the Fathers, 
by whose guidance you imagine that you have ob- 
tained your aim. We have a pretty good hint 
to this effect, when you write that you do not assert 
at all, but confer. The man who sees clearly through 
the whole of his subject, and understands it cor- 
rectly, does not write thus. I, for my part, have 
not conferred, but asserted, in this book ; yea, and 
I do assert. Neither is it my desire to appoint any 
man judge in this cause: I persuade all to receive 
my decree. The Lord, whose cause this is, shine 
upon you — and make you a vessel unto honour 
and glory ! Amen. 



London: Printed by A. Applegath, Stamford-strcct, 



fc 




<V ' -i>, ■'" * v/ 3 ^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proce: 




y • 



/ <<• Deacidified using the Bookkeeper | 

^ ' o / '*"' Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
o N '■ /f "->_, Treatment Date: Dec. 2004 



& *tt 



iNeuiranzing ageni: magnesium uxiae 
Treatment Date: Dec. 2004 

v PreservationTechnologie 

_' A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATK 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 




" X V « • v ' B * °- 











■Ml 

Hnffi 
ffiSffilgi 

ifflnUn 

■ 
■ 

riMfl Bffi 

■ 

iaB 

HBWao 
HnH 







KXKII 






flgflra 



H. 
n 



